We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
14 September 2016
It is a general principle of South African law that the High Court's jurisdiction cannot be limited by a clause in a contract to refer disputes to arbitration.
While the court has discretion to decide whether to uphold an arbitration clause, the burden of proof rests on the party seeking to avoid arbitration (in favour of court proceedings). This burden – according to case law – is not easily discharged.
In the context of admiralty proceedings, the legislation governing South African admiralty procedure and practice grants the court express discretion to stay proceedings where the relevant parties agree that the disputed matter should be referred to arbitration or if, for any other sufficient reason, the court believes that the proceedings should be stayed.
Against this background, in the recent Eastern Cape Local Division of the High Court case of Transnet SA Ltd v Hotazel Manganese Mine Ltd, the plaintiff commenced a court action against Transnet, alleging that a breach of contract had occurred when its cargo of manganese ore was contaminated by manganese ore of a different grade which was owned by a third party and which, in turn, caused the plaintiff to suffer damages.
The relationship between the parties was governed by a written services agreement for cargo handling, which included a dispute resolution clause. The clause contained, among other things, a referral of disputes to arbitration under the rules of the Arbitration Foundation of Southern Africa.
It was alleged that the breach of contract had occurred on or around June 20 2012. In the subsequent 18 months, various attempts were made by the parties to negotiate a possible settlement, all of which were unsuccessful. From December 5 2013 to May 5 2015 no further steps were taken by any of the parties to deal with the matter. By this stage, the three-year prescription period (ie, the time bar) to commence legal proceedings was looming and in light of Transnet's refusal to agree to an extension, Hotazel, in its own words, adopted a "safety first approach and issued summons in… Court.''
The commencement of court proceedings prompted Transnet to bring an application to stay Hotazel's admiralty action pending resolution of the matter by arbitration.
The following points arose from the court's judgment:
"An indulgence was sought and the indulgence was refused, which the Applicant was, in my view, plainly entitled to do. I also do not regard the refusal to give an extension of time as a breach of the good faith provisions of clause 28 of the contract.''
The court proceeded to consider the grounds relied on by Hotazel not to order a stay and found that they provided no compelling reasons for excusing it from its obligation to comply with the dispute resolution clause.
The court found that the following factors were relevant in exercise of its discretion:
The court was ultimately unconvinced that Hotazel had discharged its burden of proof to justify a refusal to stay the action and ordered that the action be stayed pending resolution of the matter by arbitration.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.