...
r,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION , PRETORIA
(l) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
04/06/2025
DATE
In the matter between:
RAND WATER
And
TAROLINE (PTY) LTD
ZUIKERBOSCH BIOCAL PRODUCTS CC &
TAROLINE (PTY) LTD JOINT VENTURE
MILLS & GROENEWALD ATTORNEYS
SHERIFF SANDTON SOUTH
NEDBANK LIMITED CASE NO: 2024-124556
Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
Fourth Respondent
Fifth Respondent
2
JUDGMENT
MBONGWE J:
INTRODUCTION
[1) This opposed application was brought on urgency in terms of Rule 6 (12) of the
Uniform Rules of the Court and served before me on 31 October 2024. The
applicant sought an order declaring a writ of execution in favour of the first
respondent for the recovery Of R 20 157 445.90 invalid and setting it aside,
alternatively , the suspension of the execution of such writ. Having heard the
arguments and considered the matter, this court gave an ex-tempore judgment
in terms of which the writ concerned was declared invalid and set aside.
[2) Counsel for the parties were requested to submit their heads of argument on
the issues argued and costs. This was done, albeit later than the agreed dates
-on 19 December 2024 and 7 January 2025 by the Applicant and First
Respondent , respectively.
BRIEF BACKGROUND FACTS
(3) Taroline (Pty) Ltd, the First Respondent and an entity called Zuikerbosch Biocal
Products CC formed a joint venture, the second respondent, which was
awarded a tender by Rand Water for the removal of sludge. Rand water and
the second respondent subsequently concluded a written agreement in terms
of which any dispute that may arise between the two parties shall be referred
to arbitration .
,.
•·· 3
[4] In 2016 the second respondent had issued summons in this court under case
number 52056/16 against Rand Water for payment of the amount of
R23 671 673.68, which amount was subsequently upheld by the arbitrator,
Ezra Goldstein who on 24 May 2016 issued the award in favour of the second
respondent. During the arbitration the arbitrator had made an interim award for
payment of R2 093 221.03, which Rand Water duly paid.
[5] Rand Water instituted proceedings in this court seeking the review and setting
aside of the arbitration award. The review application came before Meyer J in
the matter of Rand Water v Zuikerbosch Biocal Products CC and Taroline
(PTY) LTD Joint Venture & Another, case number (52056/16) [2018)
ZAGPPHC 679. The amount concerned was now the balance of
R21 668 452.60. Meyer J made the following order:
5.1 The award of R1 511 006.70 forming part of the award of R21 668 452.60
is set aside as well as for the payment of interest on the amount of R1 511
006.70 at 9% per annum from 11 May 2015, as set out in paragraph [277]
A.2.2.3 of the award.
5.2 The first respondent is ordered to pay 10% of the applicant's costs of this
application , including the costs of two counsel, one of whom a senior
counsel.
5.3The applicant is ordered to pay 90% of the first respondent 's costs of the
application , including those of senior counsel.
4
[6] The reason for the deduction of R 1 511 006.70, Meyer J found, was that such
amount was in respect of the sludge that had been removed prior to the
conclusion of the contract. The total debt was, therefore R20 157 445.90.
[7] It is necessary to state that the second respondent Uoint venture) in the present
proceedings was represented in both the arbitration and the review proceedings
by the third respondent attorneys .
SETTLEMENT OF THE DEBT
[8] Following the judgment of Meyer J, the attorneys of both Rand Water and the
second respondent engaged in the calculation of the amounts owed, including
interest as per the judgment.
[9] On 8 November 2018, both parties' attorneys agreed that the total debt
including interest was the amount of R31 305 659.00. This amount was duly
paid to the second respondent's attorneys , Mills & Groenewald on 27
November 2018, thus extinguishing the debt.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
[1 O] The first respondent , although forming part of the second respondent , was not
on its own a party to the proceedings and;
10. 1 had no locus standi to seek to recover a debt, even if there was any, on
behalf of the second respondent , let alone to have and execute the writ
sought to be set aside in this application.
r,r 5
10.2 Besides, Rand Water had long made full payment of its debt to the
second Respondent's attorneys when the writ of execution was issued
on 24 October 2024.
CONCLUSION
[11] It is on the basis of the findings above stated, that this court granted the relief
sought in the urgent application.
COSTS
(12] The general rule that costs follow the result finds application in this case.
ORDER
1 . The writ of execution for the recovery of the R20 15 7 445. 90 from the Applicant
is declared invalid and set aside;
2. The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application , including the
costs consequent upon the employment of senior counsel.
MPN MBONGWE
JUDG
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Appearances:
For the Applicant:
Instructed by:
For the First Respondent:
Instructed by:
Date of hearing:
Date of Order:
Date of Judgment: 6
Adv M Sella SC
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr
Adv T Hlokwe
Mchale Incorporated
31 October 2024
31 October 2024
04 June 2025