1 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION. JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO : 011663 /2022
In the matter between
DATE : 26.08.2026
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED
SIGNATURE DATE 26 August 2026
10 PAUL'S HOMEMADE (PTY} LTD
and
Applicant
CREAM WE GO (PTY} LTD AND OTHERS Respondents
J U D G M E N T EX TEMPORE
WILSON J: On 18 July 2022, Azhar Bham , sitting as an
arbitrator , made an award d ismissing certain c hallenges to
h is jurisd iction raised by the respondents in this matter.
Speaking very broadly , those challenges were based on
20 what the respondents sa id we re the arb itra to r's lac k of
jur isdict ion to adjud icate certa in matters of importance to
the respondents under the Consumer Protection Act 68 of
2008.
On 30 September 2022, the respondents brought an
appl ication in this court to stay any further arb itration
011663/2022 _26082026 I jhk
JUDGMENT
011663/2022_ 26082026 / jhk
2
proceedings pending the finalisation of further relief in
which the respondents sought the arbitration agreement
under which Azhar Bham acted to be declared void. The
basis for that application and the final relief sought was
essentially the same as the objection raised to Mr Bham's
jurisdiction.
My brother , Kun y J, granted an interim order staying
the arbitration before Mr Bham , pending the determination
and finalisation of the relief declaring the arbitration
agreement to be void. Part B was then heard before my
10
brother K umalo J and was dismissed. An appeal to the full
court was also dismissed, albeit for different reasons.
The respondents now petition the Supreme Court of
Appeal against the decision of the full court. That petition
is yet to be determined. N otwithstanding that petition, the
applicant approaches me to have Mr Bham's award on
jurisdiction made an order of court. I would, even in the
absence of Kuny J's order, consider it inappropriate to grant
that relief in circumstances where a question material to it
was under consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
20
Kuny J’s order fortifies me in that position.
Kuny J’s order stays the arbitration pending the
determination and finalisation of the relief sought by the
applicants in their application before this court to have the
arbitration agreement declared void . That seems to me to
3 JUDGMENT
extend to any appea l the respondents might pursue before
the Supreme Court of Appea l. A lthough Just ice Kuny's
order m ig ht not , on its face , be read to exclude my power to
make Mr Sham's award on jur isdict ion an order of Court , it
seems to me to be cons istent with the purpose of his order
to decline , at th is stage, to entertain such an appl ication.
S imply put , the respondents are entitled to have their
concerns and arguments based on the Consumer Protect ion
Act f inally determ ined before the arb itrat ion goes any
10 further and before th is court takes any action to make any
award an order of court.
For all those reasons , I make the fo llow ing order.
1. The applicat ion is postponed sine die.
2. The quest ion of costs is reserved.
011663 /2022 _26082026 I jhk
WILSON, J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
26 August 2026