Supreme Court: State Cannot Acquire Temple Property Through Gift Deed  ||  Supreme Court: HC Registry Should Exclude Court Vacations When Listing Cases After Fixed Days  ||  Supreme Court Flags Stark Non-Compliance With Directions on CAPF Cadre Review  ||  Supreme Court: Internet Access and Use is a Fundamental Right, Including for Children  ||  Supreme Court: Letters Patent Bench Cannot Interfere Merely Over Errors of Fact or Law  ||  Supreme Court: Voters May File Complaints Against Candidates over False Affidavits under RP Act  ||  Madras HC: Using Children in Campaign is Inappropriate but Does Not Invalidate Election  ||  Allahabad HC: Section 69 BNS Cannot Be Invoked by Transgender Woman in False Marriage Promise Case  ||  Delhi High Court Permits Britannia’s ‘No Added Sugar, Maida or Palm Oil’ Claim on Biscuit Packs  ||  Calcutta High Court Bars Deportation of Alleged Bangladeshi Woman until CAA Application is Decided    

Close-Up Mining (Pty) Ltd and Others vs. The Arbitrator, Judge Phillip Boruchowitz and Another - (31 Mar 2023)

Arbitration Foundation of Southern Africa Rules did not confer a discretionary power upon the Arbitrator to decide whether to adjudicate the defence of repudiation

Arbitration

The second Respondent brought arbitral proceedings against the Appellants. The dispute submitted to arbitration concerned two agreements. In the award, the Arbitrator declined to consider a defence raised by Close-Up Mining to the effect that, the Lutzkie Group had repudiated the agreements. The Arbitrator found that the defence had not been pleaded, and hence fell outside his jurisdiction. Close-Up Mining considered the Arbitrator to have fallen into error. Consequently, Close-Up Mining brought review proceedings in the High Court.

The high Court found that, the disputes raised in the arbitration proceedings were those raised on the pleadings. And since the repudiation defence had not been raised on the pleadings, the Arbitrator had correctly decided that, he lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the defence. The question to be determined in the appeal was whether a party to arbitration proceedings that had failed to plead an issue may nevertheless seek to have the arbitrator decide that issue.

The competence of an arbitrator to decide matters was determined by the arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement may confine the submission to the issues that have been pleaded. But there was no rule of law that required the parties to confine their agreement in this way. The arbitration agreement can therefore confer a competence upon an arbitrator to decide matters upon an exercise of discretion of the kind recognised in Shill v Milner. All depended upon what the parties had agreed, and the proper interpretation of their agreement.

The arbitration agreement, the parties had agreed, was taken to include the Arbitration Foundation of Southern Africa (AFSA) rules. The AFSA rules did not confer a discretionary power upon the Arbitrator to decide whether to adjudicate the defence of repudiation. If the AFSA rules recognised no such power, then it was common ground that the arbitration agreement did not do so. Consequently, the Arbitrator made no error when he declined to entertain the defence of repudiation. And hence, CloseUp Mining had failed to establish that the Arbitrator committed a gross irregularity. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : AGREEMENT   DEFENCE   REPUDIATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved