About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPJHC 710
|
|
Juvansu Trading CC v Puma Energy Procurement South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Other (2022/003038) [2024] ZAGPJHC 710 (24 July 2024)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO: 2022-003038
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: NO
______________
____________________
DATE
SIGNATURE
In
the matter between:
In
the matter between:
JUVANSU
TRADING CC
Plaintiff
/ Applicant / Appellant
And
PUMA
ENERGY PROCUREMENT
SOUTH
AFRICA (PTY) LTD
First
Defendant / Respondent
PUMA
ENERGY
SOUTH AFRICA (PTY)
LTD
Second
Defendant / Respondent
HENDRIK
LOUW
Third
Defendant / Respondent
Heard:
17 April 2024
Delivered:
This Judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ legal representatives by email and
by uploading to
Caselines. The date and time for hand down is deemed to be 10:00 am
on 24 July 2024.
JUDGEMENT
GREEN,
AJ
[1]
On 9 July 2024 I handed down a judgement in
this matter. That judgement deals with the Applicant’s claim
for the setting aside
of an arbitration award published by the third
respondent.
[2]
On 18 July 2024, the First and Second
Respondents’ attorneys directed an email to me in which they
pointed out that the Respondents’
counter application was not
dealt with in the judgement which I had handed down. In response to
that email, I asked the attorneys
for the Applicant and the First and
Second Respondents to confirm whether they agreed that the First and
Second Respondents’
counterapplication had served before me.
Both parties have responded that they agree that the Respondents’
counterapplication
served before me. This judgement accordingly deals
with the counter application and must be read together with the
judgment I handed
down on 9 July 2024.
[3]
In the counterapplication the First and
Second Respondents seek an order that the award published by the
Arbitrator on 1 April 2022
be made an order of court. The First and
Second Respondents also ask for costs of the counter application. The
affidavit to support
the counter application is contained within the
First and Second Respondents’ answering affidavit and is
answered in the
replying affidavit.
[4]
In opposing the counter application, the
heads of argument filed on behalf of the Applicant articulated the
grounds of opposition
as:
[4.1]
where the Award falls to be set aside the counter application must
fail;
[1]
and
[4.2]
the First and Second Respondents did not prove a valid arbitration
agreement, and the Arbitrator did not have jurisdiction
to make the
determinations that he did.
[2]
[5] In the
judgement that I handed down on 9 July 2024:
[5.1]
I dismissed the application seeking to set aside the Arbitrator’s
award. That finding is dispositive of the first ground
of opposition
raised by the Applicant to the counter application.
[5.2]
I found that the Arbitrator was vested with the necessary
jurisdiction to decide whether the suspensive conditions had been
fulfilled, and I found that in granting the Award he did not go
beyond the bounds of his jurisdiction, or the issues that were
before
him. That finding is dispositive of the second ground on which the
counter application is opposed.
[6]
Given that I have found that the Arbitrator’s award ought not
to be set aside, and that the grounds of opposition
to the
counterapplication articulated by the Applicant cannot be upheld, it
follows that the relief sought in the counter application
should be
granted.
[7]
The First and Second Respondents have asked for costs of the counter
application. If I had granted the order contained
within this
judgement when I handed down my judgement on 9 July 2024 I would have
dismissed the main application, granted the counter
application and
granted a single costs order. The circumstances under which this
judgment is handed down have resulted in me having
to grant a
separate costs order. Notwithstanding that this is a separate costs
order, when this costs order is taxed no part of
the costs associated
with the main application are to be included in this costs order, and
it is limited only to the costs associated
with the counter
application having due regard to avoid any duplication of costs in
respect of the main application. Counsels’
costs will be taxed
on scale C, for the same reasons reflected in my judgement of 9 July
2024.
[8]
For the reasons set out above, I make the following order:
1. “The
arbitration award published by Advocate H Louw on 1 April 2022
is made an order of court.
2. The
costs of the counterapplication are to be paid by the Applicant with
counsels’ costs to be taxed on scale
C.”
I
GREEN
Acting
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng
Division, Johannesburg
Appearances
For
the Applicant: H M Viljoen instructed by Hay and
Scott
For
the First and Second Respondent: AJ Daniels SC and
CT Vetter instructed Webber Wentzel
Date
of hearing: 17 April 2024
Date
of judgment: 23 July 2024
[1]
Heads
of Argument, para. 94.
[2]
Heads of Argument, para. 95.