South Africa Case Law

Transnet (SOC) Limited v Tenova Mining and Minerals South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another (2022/006083)

Transnet (SOC) Limited v Tenova Mining and Minerals South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another (2022/006083) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1837 (19 October 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2022/006083

Judge

Potterill

The court found that the arbitration was self-administered and not under the auspices of the Association of Arbitrators, so Rule 9 did not bar the court from entertaining the application. Rule 9 is permissive, not mandatory, and does not exclude the operation of section 13(2) of the Arbitration Act. The arbitrator made definitive findings that Transnet had no claim for damages or any other claim and no viable alternative to what it had pleaded, which created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The arbitrator's approach went beyond the scope of exception proceedings and amounted to a final view…

Source excerpt

• Arbitrator Removal
• Perception Of Bias
• Arbitration Act Section 13
• Contractual Interpretation
• Exception Procedure

Bike Mob (Pty) Ltd and Others v Arbitrator and Another (7496/2020)

Bike Mob (Pty) Ltd and Others v Arbitrator and Another (7496/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 120 (21 June 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

7496/2020

Judge

J Cloete

The High Court held that an arbitrator could issue an interim ruling on fees under the lease arbitration clause and dismissed a bias-based removal application.

• Arbitration Award Review
• Arbitrator Removal
• Contractual Interpretation
• Interim Award
• Perceived Bias
• Arbitration

Hyde Construction CC v Deuchar Family Trust and Another (12471/2012; A460/2013)

Hyde Construction CC v Deuchar Family Trust and Another (12471/2012; A460/2013) [2014] ZAWCHC 118; 2015 (5) SA 388 (WCC) (11 August 2014)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

12471/2012; A460/2013

Judges

Traverso, Bozalek, Rogers

The court held that the Deuchar Family Trust was properly before the court as applicant because any deficiency in authority at the time of institution was cured by subsequent ratification by all trustees, who held the requisite letters of authority. The trust deed required a minimum of three trustees, and at all relevant times, four trustees with authority existed, so there was no incapacity. The court distinguished between lack of authority, which may be ratified, and lack of capacity, which cannot. The citation of the trust by name was accepted as a reference to the trustees for the time be…

Source excerpt

• Arbitrator Removal
• Trustee Authority
• Ratification Of Proceedings
• Arbitration Act
• Waiver Of Statutory Rights

Umgeni Water v Hollis NO and Another (11876/10)

Umgeni Water v Hollis NO and Another (11876/10) [2012] ZAKZDHC 10; 2012 (3) SA 475 (KZD) (8 March 2012)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

11876/10

Judge

Van Zyl

High Court refused to remove an arbitrator, finding no objectively reasonable apprehension of bias and dismissing the application with costs.

• Arbitrator Removal
• Perception Of Bias
• Arbitration Act Section 13
• Costs Order
• Recusal Standard
• Arbitrator-removal