South Africa Case Law

Medtronic (Africa) (Pty) Limited v Capital Endovascular (Pty) Limited and Another (2022/046095)

Medtronic (Africa) (Pty) Limited v Capital Endovascular (Pty) Limited and Another (2022/046095) [2025] ZAGPJHC 745 (5 August 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/046095

Judge

Adams

The court found that the true intention of the parties, as evidenced by the settlement negotiations and correspondence, was to settle for R48 million plus VAT. The reference to R32 million in words in the written agreement was a typographical error and did not reflect the parties' agreement. The authority of Mr Moodley to conclude the agreement was established by a power of attorney, and any alleged private instructions did not affect his authority as far as the applicant was concerned. The arbitral award was valid and enforceable, and the applicant was entitled to have it made an order of co…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act 42 Of 1965
• Enforcement Of Arbitral Award
• Interpretation Of Contracts
• Rectification
• Specific Performance

Befula Investment (Pty) Ltd t/a Rossi Engineering v Transnet Limited (AR333/23; D10584; D5234/2020)

Befula Investment (Pty) Ltd t/a Rossi Engineering v Transnet Limited (AR333/23; D10584; D5234/2020) [2025] ZAKZPHC 19 (24 January 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR333/23; D10584; D5234/2020

Judges

Mngadi, E Bezuidenhout, Nako

The court held that the arbitration process constitutes a single impediment to the running of prescription under section 13(1)(f) of the Prescription Act. Interim awards delivered during the arbitration do not terminate the arbitration process for the purposes of prescription. The penalty awards in favour of Transnet were not contingent on other claims, but the arbitration as a whole had not been finalised. Therefore, prescription remained suspended until the completion of the arbitration, and Transnet was not required to apply to make the interim awards orders of court within one year of the…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act 42 Of 1965
• Prescription Act 68 Of 1969
• Interim Arbitration Award
• Enforcement Of Awards
• Prescription Of Debt

Municipal Employees Pension Fund v Adamax Property Projects Menlyn (Pty) Ltd (2023/113014, 2024/022755, 2023/089092)

Municipal Employees Pension Fund v Adamax Property Projects Menlyn (Pty) Ltd (2023/113014, 2024/022755, 2023/089092) [2024] ZAGPJHC 851 (28 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/113014, 2024/022755, 2023/089092

Judge

Wepener

The High Court dismissed the Pension Fund’s review applications and upheld Adamax’s counter-application to make an arbitral award an order of court.

• Arbitration Act 42 Of 1965
• Review Of Arbitral Award
• Co Ownership Agreement
• Declaratory Relief
• Lis Pendens
• Admissibility Of Evidence

Krohne (Pty) Ltd v Strategic Fuel Fund Association (476/2023)

Krohne (Pty) Ltd v Strategic Fuel Fund Association (476/2023) [2024] ZASCA 99 (14 June 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

476/2023

Judges

Nicholls, Mothle, Molefe, Smith, Mbhele

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred in dismissing the appellant's claim on a point in limine. The parties had agreed in the interim award that the findings of the independent expert would be final and binding. The SGS report constituted the cause of action, and the appellant's claim was founded on that report. The high court misconstrued the issue by focusing on the validity of the interim award rather than whether the SGS report satisfied the agreed condition precedent for payment. The interim award, as defined by the Arbitration Act, was valid, and the settlement agre…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act 42 Of 1965
• Enforcement Of Arbitral Award
• Settlement Agreement
• Expert Determination
• Cause Of Action
• Interim Award

Thiko Consulting Engineers and Others v University of Venda and Another (161/2022)

Thiko Consulting Engineers and Others v University of Venda and Another (161/2022) [2024] ZALMPTHC 26 (26 March 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Case number

161/2022

Judge

Khosa AJ

The court found that the Respondents, by filing an answering affidavit, had taken a step in the proceedings and were thus precluded from seeking a stay under Section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act. The court further held that the legality challenge to the agreement, which forms the basis of the main application, is a matter for judicial determination and not for arbitration. The arbitration clause cannot be enforced independently of the agreement when the agreement itself is subject to a legality challenge. The court concluded that there is sufficient reason why the dispute should not be referre…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act 42 Of 1965
• Stay Of Proceedings
• Legality Review
• Public Procurement
• Arbitrator Appointment
• Constitutional Remedy

Member of the Executive Council For Rural Enviroment and Agricultural Development v Botha N.O and Another (M325/2019)

Member of the Executive Council For Rural Enviroment and Agricultural Development v Botha N.O and Another (M325/2019) [2024] ZANWHC 44 (20 February 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M325/2019

Judge

A Reddy

The High Court upheld a jurisdictional point in limine and dismissed an application to review or set aside an arbitration award, with costs against the applicant.

• Arbitration Act 42 Of 1965
• Jurisdiction Of High Courts
• Service Level Agreement
• Default Arbitration Award
• Arbitration
• Court-jurisdiction

Rabinowitz v Levy and Others (1276/2022)

Rabinowitz v Levy and Others (1276/2022) [2024] ZASCA 8 (26 January 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1276/2022

Judges

Mbatha, Mothle, Mabindla-Boqwana, Koen, Masipa

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the arbitrator's powers and procedural discretion were governed by the sale agreement and AFSA rules, which required any amendment to be in writing and signed by the parties. The parties' email did not constitute a binding amendment and could not fetter the arbitrator's discretion. The arbitrator was entitled to determine whether further hearings were necessary and correctly interpreted the email as requiring a further hearing only if the quantum was unclear. The arbitrator's finding that the quantum of the stock claim was clear was based on the evidence,…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act 42 Of 1965
• Gross Irregularity
• Contractual Interpretation
• Arbitrator Powers
• Review Of Arbitration Award

Emalini Enterprises 15 CC and Another v Grains For Africa Commodity Brokers (Pty) Ltd and Others (2021/11461)

Emalini Enterprises 15 CC and Another v Grains For Africa Commodity Brokers (Pty) Ltd and Others (2021/11461) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1333 (20 November 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/11461

Judge

Thupaatlase

The court found that the arbitrator did not exceed his mandate or commit gross irregularity in awarding damages under Claim B, as the reference to 'penalty' was interpreted in context as financial damages and not as a contractual penalty. No direct evidence of misconduct was presented, and the arbitrator's reasoning was not so grossly flawed as to warrant interference. The punitive costs order, though overlapping in rationale with attorney-client costs, was within the arbitrator's discretion under section 35 of the Arbitration Act. However, the argument of duplication was substantiated, but n…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act 42 Of 1965
• Arbitrator Mandate
• Gross Irregularity
• Punitive Costs
• Prescription Of Claims
• Sanctity Of Contract

Altech Radio Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Aeonova360 Management Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/001585)

Altech Radio Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Aeonova360 Management Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/001585) [2023] ZAGPJHC 475 (15 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/001585

Judge

Moorcroft

The court held that the arbitrator did not commit a gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. The arbitrator's award was based solely on the pleadings and common cause documents, and he did not prejudge or determine the merits of the claims. The process complied with the rules of natural justice, and the applicant's audi alteram partem rights were not infringed. The arbitrator acted within his wide-ranging powers under the AFSA Commercial Rules, and the decision to determine entitlement to an account before other issues was procedurally fair. The doctrine of peremption…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act 42 Of 1965
• Gross Irregularity
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Fiduciary Duty To Account
• Contractual Interpretation

JVE Civil Engineers Inc v Blue Bantry Investments 235 (Pty) Ltd and Another (1016/2021)

JVE Civil Engineers Inc v Blue Bantry Investments 235 (Pty) Ltd and Another (1016/2021) [2023] ZASCA 12 (16 February 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1016/2021

Judges

Van der Merwe, Mocumie, Hughes, Goosen, Windell

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed a review of an arbitral appeal award, holding that a pleaded compromise defeated the disputed fee claims.

• Arbitration Act 42 Of 1965
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Exceeding Arbitrator Powers
• Compromise Agreement
• Pleading And Procedure
• Gross Irregularity