South Africa Case Law

PUTCO (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (21/31098)

PUTCO (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (21/31098) [2021] ZAGPJHC 416 (26 August 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21/31098

Judge

T P Mudau

The court found that section 41 of the National Land Transport Act governs the negotiations for new contracts between the City and transport operators, not section 46, which applies only to existing contracts between the contracting authority and the operator. Since Putco's contract is with the Provincial government and not the City, there is no privity of contract between Putco and the City. The dispute resolution mechanism in section 46 and Regulation 7 is therefore inapplicable. Putco failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, urgency, or irreparable harm. The balance of…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Municipal Transport Contracts
• Privity Of Contract
• Dispute Resolution Mechanism
• National Land Transport Act

UNTU and Another v PRASA and Others (J204/17)

UNTU and Another v PRASA and Others (J204/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 104 (16 February 2018)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J204/17

Judge

Steenkamp

The Labour Court dismissed SATAWU’s contempt application against PRASA with costs, finding the dispute should have gone through the agreement’s own resolution process.

• Contempt Of Court
• Settlement Agreement
• Dispute Resolution Mechanism
• Costs Award
• Contempt-of-court
• Settlement-agreements

Zinzobe and Others v Fahrenheit Seafood and Grill (J561/14)

Zinzobe and Others v Fahrenheit Seafood and Grill (J561/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 386 (6 October 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J561/14

Judge

T Ntshebe

The court found that both applications were premised on alleged breaches of a collective agreement extended to non-parties. The agreement contains a clear and mandatory dispute resolution procedure, requiring complaints to be investigated by the Bargaining Council and, if unresolved, to proceed to con-arb. The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims directly, as the applicants must first exhaust the remedies provided by the Bargaining Council. The precedent in Pardon Rukwaya & 31 Others v The Kitchen Bar Restaurant was followed, confirming that the court cannot assu…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreement Enforcement
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Dispute Resolution Mechanism
• Minimum Wage Claims
• Unlawful Deductions

Eskom Holdings Ltd v MCM Mavundla Impreglio Joint Venture and Another (2014/15608)

Eskom Holdings Ltd v MCM Mavundla Impreglio Joint Venture and Another (2014/15608) [2014] ZAGPJHC 248 (30 September 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2014/15608

Judge

Spilg

The court found that the main contract between Eskom and the Joint Venture is the governing agreement regarding the appointment and duration of the adjudicator. The NEC3 Adjudicator’s Contract is a collateral agreement regulating the relationship with the adjudicator but does not override the main contract’s provisions. The termination date in the Adjudicator’s Contract was included due to Eskom’s internal procurement policies and was not intended to limit the duration of Chapman’s appointment under the main contract. The main contract envisages that the adjudicator’s appointment endures for…

Source excerpt

• Contract Interpretation
• Adjudicator Appointment
• Declaratory Relief
• Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Group Five Construction (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry (379/2010)

Group Five Construction (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry (379/2010) [2011] ZASCA 17 (14 March 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

379/2010

Judges

Harms, Streicher, Brand, Shongwe, Theron

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's claims for additional payment under the building contract became due when written notice was given to refer the unresolved matters to court, following the dispute review board's recommendation. This interpretation was based on the contract's dispute resolution mechanism and the Prescription Act. The court found that the claims were ripe and complete at the time the notices were given, and prescription commenced from that point. The appellant's argument that the claims were merely estimates and not immediately due was rejected. The court af…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Building Contracts
• Debt Due
• Dispute Resolution Mechanism

Schwartz NO v Pike and Others (668/06)

Schwartz NO v Pike and Others (668/06) [2007] ZASCA 106; [2007] SCA 106 (RSA) [2008] 1 All SA 89 (SCA); 2008 (3) SA 431 (SCA) (19 September 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

668/06

Judges

Mthiyane, Heher, Van Heerden

The court held that the executor had to give the remaining members a reasonable chance to agree on an accountant before requesting an external appointment.

• Contract Interpretation
• Close Corporation Membership
• Valuation Of Interest
• Association Agreement
• Dispute Resolution Mechanism
• Contract-interpretation