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
Coyle and Another v Classic Comfort Construction and Others (Pty) Ltd (2022/029290) [2025] ZAGPJHC 587 (11 June 2025)
The High Court refused to stay arbitration over a construction payment dispute, finding no compelling reason to halt the arbitration pending related action proceedings.
Minister of International Relations and Co-operation NO and Another v Neo Thando / Elliot Mobility (Pty) Ltd and Another (444/2023) [2024] ZASCA 134; [2025] 1 All SA 31 (SCA) (4 October 2024)
The SCA held that Neo Thando’s unilateral referral to arbitration was invalid because the SLA required mutual consent and no dispute had yet arisen.
Cream We Go (Pty) Ltd and Another v Paul's Homemade (Pty) Ltd and Others (013187/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 847 (28 August 2024)
The High Court held that the Consumer Protection Act did not oust the arbitrator’s jurisdiction and dismissed the application to stop the arbitration.
Juvansu Trading CC v Puma Energy Procurement South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Other (2022/003038) [2024] ZAGPJHC 710 (24 July 2024)
The High Court made an arbitration award an order of court after dismissing the applicant’s bid to set it aside, and awarded costs of the counterapplication.
Juvansu Trading CC v Puma Energy Procurement South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (2022/003038) [2024] ZAGPJHC 622 (9 July 2024)
The High Court dismissed a review of an arbitral award, holding that the arbitrator could decide validity, suspensive conditions, and the settlement issue within the dispute.
Lebashe Investment Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Coral Lagoon Investments 194 (Pty) Ltd and Others (2022-060488) [2024] ZAGPJHC 117 (9 February 2024)
The court held that the arbitrator was entitled to decide upon his own jurisdiction, and Lebashe, having participated in the special plea procedure, could challenge the interim award on review. The restraint order under POCA does not prohibit the continuation of arbitration proceedings, as 'dealing in' property is interpreted narrowly to exclude adjudication of rights. The arbitrator did not commit a gross irregularity or exceed his powers under section 33(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act. The claims in arbitration constitute property under POCA, but the arbitration does not defeat the restraint…
Source excerpt
Tansnat Durban (Pty) Ltd v eThekwini Municipality and Another (D11215/2022) [2024] ZAKZDHC 1 (11 January 2024)
The court found that the arbitrator issued an impermissible hybrid award by deciding some issues and leaving the PTIG bus issue for the court, despite it being within his mandate. This contravenes the established legal principle that arbitrators must decide all matters referred to them, and hybrid orders are not permitted. The arbitrator's lack of jurisdiction to decide the PTIG issue, due to statutory restriction, did not mean the issue was not properly placed before him. The award is thus a nullity and does not require a formal setting aside under section 33 of the Arbitration Act. The cour…
Source excerpt
Municipal Employees Pension Fund v Adamax Property Projects Menlyn (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/098721) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1247 (31 October 2023)
The court dismissed an urgent bid to stay arbitration proceedings, finding the urgency self-created and no prima facie basis for a review or stay in the interests of justice.
Parliament of Republic of South Africa v Albertyn and Others (C436/2020) [2023] ZALCCT 30 (20 June 2023)
The Labour Court set aside a CCMA award after finding the commissioner failed to properly decide condonation and granted it mero motu without hearing the parties.
Builda Construction Cape Proprietary Limited v Verveen and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 178; 018498/13 (22 March 2023)
The court found that the applicant had consistently disputed the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The urgency was justified by the imminent continuation of arbitration proceedings and the applicant's ongoing efforts to secure a stay. The court exercised its discretion to stay the arbitration, finding that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm and prejudice if compelled to arbitrate before the review was finalized. The arbitrator's discretion to proceed under Article 24(3) was not absolute and must be balanced against the prejudice to the…
Source excerpt
Explore more
