About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZAGPPHC 93
|
|
Armour Technology Systems (Pty) Ltd and Another v DCD Group Limited (Pty) Ltd and Others (31884/2015) [2019] ZAGPPHC 93 (20 March 2019)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case Number: 31884/2015
20/3/2019
In
the matter between:
ARMOUR
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS (PTY) LTD
First Applicant
JACOBUS
STEPHANUS VAN HEERDEN
Second Applicant
and
DCD
GROUP LIMITED (PTY) LTD
First Respondent
ANTONIE
GILDENHUYS N.O.
Second Respondent
ARBITRATION
FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN AFRICA
Third Respondent
JUDGMENT
JANSE
VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN J
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal the judgment and order
granted by this
court on 21 October 2016.
[2]
At
the inception of the hearing, I granted the following orders in terms
of an application, incidental to application for leave
to appeal,
brought by the applicant:
1.
The
first applicant is granted the right to be represented by the second
applicant.
2.
The
second applicant is granted the right to be assisted by a non-legal
practitioner in the presentation of the applicants' case.
3.
Condonation
for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
[3]
Mr
van Heerden proceeded to address the court in respect of the grounds
for leave to appeal and was, in each instance when he directed
a
request to liaise with his non-legal practitioner, granted an
opportunity to do so.
[4]
Mr
van Heerden, during his address, confined the grounds upon which the
application is brought to paragraph 4 of the application,
which reads
as follows:
"4. The Court
has wrongfully set a precedent by its ruling that it is acceptable
for a large profit
pursuing company like the First Respondent
represented by an expensive legal team in opposition of
·
self-represented litigants, by
circumstances and not by choice like the Appellants, to openly
contradict their statements challenging
that the First Appellant did
not honour its obligations towards the arbitration proceedings and
payment of fees while the First
Appellant clearly produced evidence
that it did, and afterwards be awarded with the granting of an order
with costs.”
[5]
The
ground of appeal is directed at paragraph [10] viii of the judgment
in which I stated that the first application, notwithstanding
receipt
of invoices from AFSA in respect of its contribution to the
arbitration fees, neglected to pay the amounts.
[6]
Mr
van Heerden is correct insofar as the statement may create the ,
impression that the first applicant never paid any money towards
the
arbitration fees. In order to remove any uncertainty, it is recorded
that the first applicant neglected to make the requested
payments
timeously
,
which resulted in the lapsing of the arbitration proceedings.
[7]
In
the result, the arbitration proceedings, in terms of the provisions
of
section 23(a)
of the
Arbitration Act, 42 of 1965
, did lapse on 28
February 20t5 and the application for leave to appeal has no prospect
of success.
[8]
Costs
should follow the result.
ORDER
The
application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
N
JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
DATE
HEARD
19 February 2019
JUDGMENT
DELIVERED
20 March 2019
APPEARANCES
Appearance
for the Applicants:
Mr J.S. Van Heerden (in person)
Assisted by Mr De Beer
Counsel for the Respondents:
Advocate W. Pocock
Instructed
by:
DM Kisch Inc
(011 324 3000)
Ref: CM1026ZA00/KD