NTGR Engineering Projects CC v Bakubung Minerals (Pty) Ltd (1890/2021) [2025] ZANWHC 126 (25 July 2025)
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Case number
1890/2021
Judge
T C Mokhare
The court dismissed special pleas based on arbitration and jurisdiction, holding the clause did not oust jurisdiction and the defendant had waived reliance on it.
Mhlongo v Netball South Africa (071849/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 727 (8 July 2025)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
071849/2024
Judge
Nyathi
The High Court stayed an application pending arbitration under Netball South Africa’s Constitution and ordered the applicant to pay costs on the points in limine.
Samsung Sds Global Scl South Africa Proprietary Limited v Rhenus Logistics Proprietary Limited (2023/076450; 2023/079688) [2025] ZAGPJHC 677 (18 June 2025)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2023/076450; 2023/079688
Judge
Pearse AJ
The court found that Samsung SDS could not rely on section 6(1) of the Arbitration Act to stay its own action, as that statutory power is available only to defendants or third parties. However, the court's inherent jurisdiction under section 173 of the Constitution allows it to stay proceedings in the interests of justice. The initiation of the action by Samsung SDS did not amount to a repudiation or waiver of the arbitration agreement, given its clear intention to arbitrate and the precautionary nature of the action to interrupt prescription. The interests of justice, party autonomy, and con…
Legend Spunbond (Pty) Ltd v Nefdt and Another (2024/129654) [2025] ZAGPJHC 563 (3 June 2025)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2024/129654
Judge
Nair
The court found that the requirements for lis alibi pendens were satisfied. Although the Germiston matter was instituted against LY Plastics Manufacturing and Recycling Engineering Polymers (Pty) Ltd and not directly against Mr Nefdt, he is the sole director and entered into the lease agreement on behalf of the company. The cause of action in both matters is the same—the oral commercial lease agreement—and the relief sought (ejectment from the premises) is substantially the same. The pleadings and correspondence indicate that the applicant seeks ejectment of both Mr Nefdt and the company. The…
Lewis Group Limited v Emerald Risk Transfer Proprietary Limited and Others (085183/23) [2025] ZAGPJHC 486 (20 May 2025)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
085183/23
Judge
N P Mali
The High Court stayed a business interruption insurance dispute and sent the amount-in-dispute question to arbitration, dismissing the insured’s request to avoid arbitration.
Phillips v Allcopy Publishers (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023/11479) [2025] ZAGPJHC 448 (9 May 2025)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2023/11479
Judge
G S Myburgh
The court found that the principles enunciated in CIPLA did not apply to the present matter, as the claim for an interdict was not decided but merely stayed pending the Copyright Tribunal's decision. The difficulties in quantifying damages in copyright cases, while present, do not rise to the level encountered in CIPLA, and South African courts have awarded damages based on the distribution of infringing copies in similar cases. The court was not satisfied that there was any reasonable prospect that another court would find that it acted on an incorrect principle. Furthermore, the stay had al…
Smith and Others v Georgio and Others (93417/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 373 (25 April 2025)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
93417/2019
Judge
Janse van Nieuwenhuizen
The High Court stayed proceedings pending final determination of a rescission application about a scheme of arrangement and ordered costs against the applicants on a withdrawn transfer application.
Cell C (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (30959/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 265 (17 March 2025)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
30959/2019
Judge
N. Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen
The court held that the issue of review jurisdiction had already been finally determined by Tolmay J, whose judgment was not appealed and remains binding on the parties. The pending Constitutional Court appeal in the Richards Bay matter, even if it results in a different interpretation of section 47(9)(e) of the Customs and Excise Act, will have no legal consequence in the present matter unless Tolmay J's judgment is set aside. The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that a stay of proceedings would serve the interests of justice, the parties, or the court. Accordingly, the a…