Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
V & A Placement Agency (Pty) Ltd v Lapan N.O and Another (Reasons) (2023-035959) [2025] ZAGPJHC 4 (7 January 2025)
Leave to appeal was dismissed in a review of an arbitral award. The court held the review grounds lacked merit and upheld a punitive costs order.
V and A Placement Agency (Pty) Ltd v Lapan NO and Another (039539/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 777 (5 August 2024)
Review of arbitration award dismissed; court held the arbitrator acted within powers, no gross irregularity or bias was shown, and punitive costs were ordered.
Hatch Africa (Pty) Ltd v Mabena N.O and Another (30266/22) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1973 (27 November 2023)
High Court review of an AFSA arbitration award over a service-level agreement was upheld because the arbitrator exceeded his powers and committed gross irregularity.
Aveng Africa (Pty) Ltd v Seventy Five on Maude (Pty) Ltd and Another (13909/21) [2022] ZAGPJHC 352 (24 May 2022)
The High Court dismissed a review of an arbitral award, holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers and no gross irregularity was shown.
Kruinkloof Bushveld Estate NPC v The Chairperson of the Panel of Appeal Arbitrators and Others (20/18332) [2022] ZAGPJHC 268; 2022 (6) SA 236 (GJ) (29 March 2022)
Court dismissed a review of an arbitral appeal award, corrected an erroneous costs order as a slip, and held the rest of the award severable and valid.
Eskom Holdings Limited v The Joint Venture of Edison Jehano (Pty) Ltd and KEC International Limited and Others (177/2020) [2021] ZASCA 138 (6 October 2021)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the arbitrator did not commit a gross irregularity nor exceed his powers under section 33(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act. The arbitrator considered the pleadings and schedules submitted by both parties and applied the time-bar clauses to all 13 claims, as was argued before him. The Joint Venture was aware of the time-bar defence and had the opportunity to address it. The arbitrator's determination was consistent with the principle of party autonomy and the requirements of speed, efficiency, flexibility, fairness, and finality in arbitration. There was no e…
Source excerpt
ABSA Bank Limited v Cloete and Another (35640/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 733 (9 March 2021)
Review of an arbitration award set aside for gross irregularity after the arbitrator relied on unsupported bar submissions about in duplum prejudice.
Triton Pharmacare Corporate Ltd v Green and Another (2019/20464) [2020] ZAGPJHC 60 (28 February 2020)
The court found that the arbitrator, Mr Green, did not disregard the amount of R3 647 304.31 as alleged by Triton. The amount was considered in the award and factored into the calculation of Triton's indemnity. Even if the arbitrator had erred, such an error would not constitute exceeding his powers under section 33(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act. The application was found to be unfounded and vexatious, particularly as it unjustifiably impugned the integrity of the arbitrator. The court dismissed the application and awarded punitive costs against Triton.
Source excerpt
Poseidon Home of Pegasus Logistics CC v Wescoal Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another (042801/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 431 (1 November 2017)
High Court review of an arbitration award dismissed. The court held that the alleged factual error and complaint about Ms Petrie’s letter did not justify review under section 33.
Cheg Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another v Emfuleni Estate Home Owners Association and Another (3116/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 212 (23 March 2016)
The court held that the grounds advanced by the applicants did not meet the threshold for review under section 33 of the Arbitration Act. The arbitrator did not misconduct himself, commit a gross irregularity, or exceed his powers. The alleged language barrier was not substantiated by the record, and any need for an interpreter should have been raised by the applicants' legal representatives. The arbitrator acted within his mandate, and his interpretation of the HOA constitution was within his powers. The applicants' arguments largely concerned the merits, which are not reviewable. The applic…
Source excerpt
Explore more
