South Africa Case Law

Minister of Employment and Labour v Arbitrator of AFSA: Rudzani and Others (038938/2024)

Minister of Employment and Labour v Arbitrator of AFSA: Rudzani and Others (038938/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 745 (21 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

038938/2024

Judge

Labuschagne

The High Court dismissed a review and condonation application because the arbitration award had already been made an order of court, making a section 33 review incompetent.

• Arbitration Award Enforcement
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Condonation Application
• Arbitration Act Section 33
• Arbitration Act Section 31
• Arbitration-award-enforcement

Mampuru and Others v Bowman and Another (2024/008706)

Mampuru and Others v Bowman and Another (2024/008706) [2025] ZAGPJHC 212 (5 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/008706

Judge

Swanepoel

Review of an arbitration award dismissed. The court held there was no gross irregularity, and the arbitrator’s refusal of postponement did not justify setting aside the award.

• Arbitration Review
• Gross Irregularity
• Arbitration Act Section 33
• Postponement Discretion
• Discovery Procedure
• Arbitration-review

Gil v Gil (2022/037219)

Gil v Gil (2022/037219) [2025] ZAGPJHC 29 (20 January 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/037219

Judge

Goedhart AJ

Leave to appeal was refused in a challenge to an arbitration award over family business disputes, with the court finding no gross irregularity or fair-hearing breach.

• Arbitration Act Section 33
• Condonation
• Gross Irregularity
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Fair Hearing
• Best Evidence Rule

Matiko v Friedman N.O and Another (JR570/2023)

Matiko v Friedman N.O and Another (JR570/2023) [2024] ZALCJHB 473 (28 November 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR570/2023

Judge

Prinsloo

The Labour Court held that the review of private arbitration awards is strictly confined to the grounds set out in section 33(1) of the Arbitration Act, namely misconduct, gross irregularity, excess of powers, or improper procurement of the award. The applicant's first two grounds for review, which attacked the merits of the arbitrator's findings and alleged errors of law, were found to be misconceived, as errors of law or fact do not constitute reviewable irregularities in private arbitration. The arbitrator did not misconceive the nature of the inquiry or his duties, and the process was fai…

Source excerpt

• Private Arbitration Review
• Arbitration Act Section 33
• Cost Orders In Labour Disputes
• Probationary Employment
• Procedural Irregularity
• Judicial Discretion

Desiderio v Joffe and Others (37219/2022)

Desiderio v Joffe and Others (37219/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 785 (21 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

37219/2022

Judge

Goedhart

The court found that Desiderio Gonćalves Gil failed to provide a reasonable and complete explanation for the four-month delay in filing his counter-application. He was represented by attorneys well before the relevant dates, and the absence of a certified transcript did not prevent timely filing, as the audio record was available. The court held that his explanation was inadequate and did not cover the entire period of delay. On the merits, the court determined that the alleged gross irregularity—failure to apply the best evidence rule—did not amount to a procedural irregularity as required b…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act Section 31
• Arbitration Act Section 33
• Arbitration Act Section 38
• Condonation
• Gross Irregularity
• Best Evidence Rule

Kesef Properties Pty Limited v Weinberg and Others (2021/26466)

Kesef Properties Pty Limited v Weinberg and Others (2021/26466) [2024] ZAGPJHC 692 (26 July 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/26466

Judge

C Bester

The court found no evidence of misconduct or gross irregularity by the arbitrator. The arbitrator acted within his discretion under the AFSA Rules to manage the proceedings efficiently and fairly. Kesef had ample opportunity to participate, including briefing alternative counsel, but elected not to do so and instead pursued parallel litigation. The arbitrator's prior involvement in related matters was disclosed and did not constitute bias or grounds for recusal. The arbitration agreement was valid and encompassed all disputes, including allegations of repudiation, which were properly before t…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act Section 33
• Arbitral Bias
• Repudiation Of Arbitration Agreement
• Enforcement Of Arbitral Award
• Stay Of Enforcement
• Audi Alteram Partem

Transmed South Africa Holdings (Pty) v Schaffner and Others (2023/084393)

Transmed South Africa Holdings (Pty) v Schaffner and Others (2023/084393) [2024] ZAGPJHC 482 (16 May 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/084393

Judge

Dlamini

The court found that the review application was filed one day late but condonation was justified and granted under section 38 of the Arbitration Act. On the merits, the court held that the appeal tribunal did not commit a gross irregularity or exceed its powers. The arbitrator erred by making a finding on a contract not pleaded, and the appeal tribunal correctly set aside the arbitrator's award. The alleged failure to consider all evidence did not amount to a gross irregularity, as the appeal tribunal assessed the evidence and was entitled to make its own evaluation. The review application wa…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act Section 33
• Condonation For Late Filing
• Gross Irregularity
• Arbitrator Jurisdiction
• Party Autonomy
• Counterapplication For Enforcement

Sezigen Consulting Engineers And Project Managers (Pty) Ltd v Mpati N.O and Others (25428/22)

Sezigen Consulting Engineers And Project Managers (Pty) Ltd v Mpati N.O and Others (25428/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 193 (9 February 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

25428/22

Judge

E M Kubushi

High Court review of an arbitration award succeeded after the court found a gross irregularity in the arbitrator’s treatment of damages evidence.

• Arbitration Act Section 33
• Gross Irregularity
• Quantification Of Damages
• Repudiation Of Contract
• Positive Interesse
• Arbitration-review

Toro Ya Africa Consultants (Pty) Ltd v Riddle N.O. and Another - Leave to Appeal (11808/2022)

Toro Ya Africa Consultants (Pty) Ltd v Riddle N.O. and Another - Leave to Appeal (11808/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1199 (18 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

11808/2022

Judge

G Malindi

The High Court refused leave to appeal in a review of an arbitration award, finding no gross irregularity in the documents-only procedure or the treatment of onus.

• Arbitration Act Section 33
• Gross Irregularity
• Onus Of Proof
• Fair Hearing
• Procedure In Arbitration
• Arbitration

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 1082 (28 September 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/001585

Judge

Moorcroft

Leave to appeal was dismissed in an arbitration matter, with the court finding no reasonable prospects of success and no gross irregularity.

• Arbitration Act Section 33
• Gross Irregularity Review
• Leave To Appeal Test
• Party Autonomy
• Interpretation Of Contracts
• Leave-to-appeal