South Africa Case Law

Kidrogen RF (Pty) Ltd v Erasmus and Others (815/2023)

Kidrogen RF (Pty) Ltd v Erasmus and Others (815/2023) [2025] ZASCA 3 (17 January 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

815/2023

Judges

Makgoka, Meyer, Kgoele, Coppin, Chili

Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965 does not apply to disputes that are pre-existing at the time of the arbitration agreement, but only to 'future disputes'. Kidrogen's application for extension of the time-bar was brought only after a final arbitral award had been issued upholding the time-bar defence. The award is final and binding under section 28 and was not impugned or shown to be susceptible to review. Kidrogen freely agreed to the time-bar, was aware of it, and failed to seek extension before the arbitration commenced, despite ample opportunity. Any hardship suffered was self-c…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Time Bar
• Extension Of Time
• Undue Hardship
• Finality Of Award
• Arbitration Act Section 8

Renico Earthworks & Civils (Pty) Ltd v Elmoflex (Pty) Ltd (2022/10769)

Renico Earthworks & Civils (Pty) Ltd v Elmoflex (Pty) Ltd (2022/10769) [2023] ZAGPJHC 271 (16 March 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/10769

Judge

L. Windell

An enforcement application succeeded after the respondent failed to show any factual basis for claims that arbitration proceedings were tainted or unfair.

• Arbitration Award Enforcement
• Arbitration Act Section 31
• Natural Justice
• Gross Irregularity
• Finality Of Award
• Arbitration-award-enforcement

Agriculture Research Council v NAP Designs (Pty) Ltd and Others (6387/2019)

Agriculture Research Council v NAP Designs (Pty) Ltd and Others (6387/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 250 (26 April 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

6387/2019

Judge

Basson

The High Court dismissed a review of an arbitration award, holding that the arbitrator stayed within the JBCC contract and did not commit a gross irregularity.

• Arbitration Act Review
• Arbitrator Jurisdiction
• Gross Irregularity
• Finality Of Award
• Pleadings And Scope
• Mutual Termination

Termico (Pty) Ltd v SPX Technologies (Pty) Ltd & others; SPX Technologies (Pty) Ltd v Termico (Pty) Ltd (418/2018)

Termico (Pty) Ltd v SPX Technologies (Pty) Ltd & others; SPX Technologies (Pty) Ltd v Termico (Pty) Ltd (418/2018) [2019] ZASCA 109; 2020 (2) SA 295 (SCA) (6 September 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

418/2018

Judges

Ponnan, Leach, Swain, Molemela, Mbatha

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the arbitrators had finally determined all issues referred to them, including the enforceability of the Put Option and the calculation of the Put Price. The alleged gross irregularity based on lack of finality was unfounded, as the only outstanding issue—the value of Loan B—was not within the arbitrators' jurisdiction and was not referred to them. The court found that SPXT's refusal to attend the implementation meeting constituted deliberate frustration, and the meeting was deemed to have occurred. There was no dispute as to the amount outstanding on Loan…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act 1965
• Gross Irregularity
• Finality Of Award
• Hybrid Order
• Shareholders Agreement
• Put And Call Options

Cleaverlad Projects (Pty) Limited v Venmop 275 (Pty) Limited and Another (2010/36492)

Cleaverlad Projects (Pty) Limited v Venmop 275 (Pty) Limited and Another (2010/36492) [2016] ZAGPJHC 344 (12 December 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2010/36492

Judge

A A Crutchfield

The respondents failed to demonstrate good cause for remittal of the matter to the arbitrator or for extension of the statutory period. The evidence sought to be introduced was neither weighty nor material, and could have been obtained with reasonable diligence at the time of arbitration. The arbitrator had already considered and decided the issue of the second respondent's signature, based on compelling and credible evidence from independent witnesses and the applicant. The delay in bringing the counter-application was excessive and prejudicial to the applicant, who had not been able to enfo…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act 42 Of 1965
• Remittal Of Arbitration
• Finality Of Award
• Condonation
• Enforcement Of Arbitration Award

Cheg Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another v Emfuleni Estate Home Owners Association and Another (3116/2015)

Cheg Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another v Emfuleni Estate Home Owners Association and Another (3116/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 212 (23 March 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

3116/2015

Judge

Olivier

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

• Arbitration Act Review
• Gross Irregularity
• Misconduct Of Arbitrator
• Exceeding Powers
• Finality Of Award

Walker and Another v Mosdel and Another (2009/53147)

Walker and Another v Mosdel and Another (2009/53147) [2012] ZAGPJHC 171 (29 August 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2009/53147

Judges

F Kathree-Setiloane, DSS Moshidi, TM Makgoka

High Court appeal about an arbitration award that omitted the appellants’ counterclaims. The court held the award was not final and set it aside.

• Arbitration Review
• Gross Irregularity
• Finality Of Award
• Rectification Of Contract
• Statement And Debatement
• Costs Order

Lufuno Mphaphuli & Associates (Pty) Ltd v Andrews and Another (434/06)

Lufuno Mphaphuli & Associates (Pty) Ltd v Andrews and Another (434/06) [2007] ZASCA 143; [2008] 1 All SA 321 (SCA); 2008 (2) SA 448 (SCA); 2008 (7) BCLR 725 (SCA) (22 November 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

434/06

Judges

Harms, Mthiyane, Lewis, Ponnan, Malan

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Lufuno misconceived the nature of the relief sought, erroneously treating the private arbitration as an administrative process subject to administrative law principles. The parties had agreed to finality and binding effect of the arbitrator's award, waiving further grounds of review except for procedural irregularities under s 33(1) of the Arbitration Act. The alleged 'secret meetings' between the arbitrator and Bopanang were found to be innocuous and within the arbitrator's mandate, not amounting to misconduct or bias. Lufuno failed to establish a reason…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act Review
• Condonation Of Late Filing
• Bias In Arbitration
• Finality Of Award