Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure v Tempani Construction (Pty) Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (16571/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 545 (24 November 2025)

Case Note

Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure v Tempani Construction (Pty) Ltd
Case No: 16571/2024
Heard: 30 October 2025
Delivered: 24 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significance in clarifying the principles of contract interpretation within the context of dispute resolution mechanisms in South African construction law. The judgment addresses critical legal questions regarding the binding nature of adjudication agreements and the interplay between adjudication and subsequent arbitration. Importantly, it establishes the principle that a party cannot adopt contradictory positions across different stages of litigation. The ruling not only impacts the parties involved but may also set a precedent for similar cases in the construction industry.

Cases Cited

• Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality [2012] ZASCA 13; [2012] 2 All SA 262 (SCA); 2012 (4) SA 593 (SCA)
• Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd [1984] 2 All SA 366 (A)

Legislation Cited

• The JBCC Agreement (Joint Building Contracts Committee)

Rules of Court Cited

• None cited specifically in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

This judgment pertains to an application for leave to appeal by the Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure against a prior ruling that upheld a claim by Tempani Construction (Pty) Ltd while dismissing the Minister's counterclaim. The application was predicated on the assertion that there were reasonable prospects of success on appeal and compelling reasons to warrant a hearing. However, the court dismissed the application, citing a party's inability to adopt contradictory positions in litigation and determining that the adjudication agreement in question did not create a right to further arbitration.

Key Issues

The court was tasked with determining whether the Minister's appeal had reasonable prospects of success based on two primary issues. Firstly, whether the adjudication process was intended as final and binding between the parties, and secondly, whether a two-tiered dispute resolution process existed as per the parties’ agreement. The court also considered whether the Minister's arguments constituted a contradictory position compared to their stance in the original proceedings.

Held

The court held that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court found that the adjudication agreement did not permit the Minister to pursue arbitration post-adjudication, thereby affirming the prior ruling. The court emphasized that the Minister could not change their legal position after the fact and that the evidence supported the construction of the agreement as final.

THE FACTS

The Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure filed an application for leave to appeal against a judgment handed down on 15 September 2025. This judgment supported claims made by Tempani Construction and dismissed the Minister's counterclaim. The appeal was argued on the grounds that there were reasonable prospects of success. The dispute originated from an agreement regarding a two-tiered dispute resolution process and whether an adjudicator's decision was indeed final. Throughout the proceedings, assertions were made regarding the interpretation of the Adjudication Agreement and the absence of a valid arbitration clause.

THE ISSUES

The primary legal questions before the court were whether the adjudication process was binding and conclusive, and whether the Minister's claims regarding an entitlement to arbitration were sustainable following the original judgment. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain if it was permissible for the Minister to adopt a contradictory legal position in support of their appeal, particularly in light of the Minister’s previous assertions during the initial proceedings.

ANALYSIS

In assessing the submissions presented, the court scrutinized the principles of contract interpretation and the specific language employed within the Adjudication Agreement. The court held that an adjudication decision generally should not be considered final unless explicitly stated. It rejected the notion that outside legal interpretations could alter the consensus reached between parties regarding their contract.

The court further analyzed the Minister's claim for arbitration, noting inconsistencies in their arguments. It stated that the primary position taken by the Minister in the initial proceedings was that adjudication was the exclusive method of dispute resolution. By attempting to argue otherwise in the current application, they adopted contradictory stances, which the court deemed inappropriate. This misalignment undermined the likelihood of success for the appeal, given that a party cannot shift its position to gain an advantage in subsequent proceedings.

The court indicated that it must adhere to the established contract interpretation principles, which focus on the express intentions of the parties as established in their written agreements. It noted that the Minister failed to provide sufficient grounds to show that their understanding of the dispute resolution processes negated the agreement as interpreted by the court.

REMEDY

The court dismissed the Minister's application for leave to appeal, asserting that no reasonable prospects of success were evident, and declined to provide any other remedial orders. Costs were awarded against the applicant, signifying the unsuccessful nature of the appeal.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The court reasserted that in contract law, intentions of the parties must be gathered from the written agreement itself, with no room for subjective interpretation. Best evidence principles apply, and where parties clearly articulated their agreement, the court must enforce that intention. In addition, a party adopting a contradictory position in legal proceedings risks dismissal of their claims due to inconsistency. The principles of finality, binding agreements, and clarity of terms remain paramount in legal interpretations of agreements, particularly in the construction industry’s adjudicatory mechanisms.