THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Reportable
Case no: 479/2020

In the matter between:
CANTON TRADING 17 (PTY) LTD T/A
CUBE ARCHITECTS

APPELLANT
and
FANTI BEKKER HATTINGH N O

RESPONDENT

Neutral citation:
Canton Trading 17 (Pty) Ltd t/a Cube Architects v Fanti Bekker
Hattingh N O (479/2020) [2021] ZASCA 163 (1 December 2021)
Coram:
SALDULKER, MATHOPO and MOCUMIE JJA and PHATSHOANE and
UNTERHALTER AJJA.
Heard:
20 August 2021
Delivered:  This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties' legal representatives by email, publication on the Supreme Court of Appeal
website and release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand down is deemed to be
09h45 on 1 December 2021.
Summary:  Arbitration – who decides whether the parties consented to refer a
dispute to arbitration when there is a dispute of fact  as to their consent – separability
and competence-competence – the discretion of the high court to adjudicate the
question of the existence of an arbitration agreement – the requirements for the
application of a robust approach to adjudicate disputes of facts not met.

ORDER

On appeal from: Free State Division of the High Court, Bloemfontein (Naidoo ADJP
and Daffue and Reinders JJ sitting as court of appeal.)
1 The appeal is upheld with costs.
2 The order of the full court is set aside and substituted with the following order:
‘(a)
The appeal is upheld with costs.
(b)
The order of the high court is set aside and substituted with the following order:
“The application is remitted to the high court to determine whether the
application should be referred to evidence, and if so on what terms, or whether
the application should be dismissed”.’

JUDGMENT

Mocumie JA and Unterhalter AJA (Saldulker and Mathopo JJA concurring.)

[1] The central question in this appeal is whether the Free State Division of the
High Court (the high court) was correct to order the appellant (Canton Trading) to
submit certain disputes to arbitration.

[2] Canton Trading appealed the high court’s order to the full court of the Free State
Division of the High Court (the full court). The full court dismissed its appeal. Canton
Trading appeals that order, with the special leave of this Court.

[3] The background facts are as follows. Canton Trading is a firm of architects.
During 2011, the respondent, the Qwaha Trust (the Trust), commenced its use of the
professional services of Canton Trading. Canton Trading rendered professional
architectural services to the Trust in respect of various projects. Some seven projects
were undertaken.

[4] During 2013, the respondent wished to expand the Itau Mill on plot 47
Qwaggafontein, Bloemfontein (the project) and approached Canton Trading to engage

its services for the project. Canton Trading orally accepted the offer to do so. As the
principal agent of the Trust, on 5 February 2014, Canton Trading negotiated and
concluded a building agreement referred to as the Joint Building Contracts Committee
Series 2000 Standard Building Agreement (the JBCC agreement) with a building
contractor, Royal Anthem Investments 12 CC (the contractor). Canton Trading was
appointed as the Trust’s principal agent under clause 42.4 of the JBCC agreement.
When the JBCC agreement was concluded, Mr Johan Louw (identified as the project
manager) signed the JBCC agreement, representing Canton Trading as the principal
agent and duly appointed representative of the Trust. A document, styled the
‘Appointment of Professional Service Provider’ (PSP), was prepared by Canton
Trading’s attorneys and presented to the Trust during March 2014. The PSP was not
signed by either of the parties. Nonetheless, throughout the project, Canton Trading
rendered services and was paid by the Trust upon presentation of its invoices.

[5] Canton Trading acted as the Trust’s principal agent until 2 August 2014. The
JBCC agreement was terminated on the instructions of the Trust on the basis of
defective work performed by the contractor. The Trust took up the position that Canton
Trading had failed to perform its duties as its principal agent and issued a letter of
demand in which it invited Canton Trading to agree to the appointment of a mediator,
failing which, in terms of clause 23 of the PSP, the dispute was to be submitted for
mediation and arbitration.

[6] Correspondence was exchanged between the attorneys of the parties. In a
letter dated 15 September 2017, the attorneys acting for Canton Trading
acknowledged receipt of the demand of the Trust, and responded that they were
considering their client’s position and would revert.  On 2 November 2017, the
attorneys for the Trust reminded Canton Trading’s attorneys that a dispute had been
raised in terms of clause 23.6 of the PSP and that Canton Trading had failed to confirm
that the matter was to be referred to a mediator. They afforded Canton Trading a
period of 21 (twenty-one) days, as envisaged in clause 23.6 of the PSP, to confirm the
appointment of either Judge Hancke and or Judge Cilliers (both retired judges), to act
as the arbitrator and for the matter to be referred to arbitration.

[7] On 7 November 2017, Canton Trading’s attorneys informed the Trust that their
client was not prepared to mediate and that Canton Trading was in principle prepared
to proceed with the arbitration process. On 20 November 2017, and in response to the
letter of 2 November 2017, Canton Trading’s attorneys informed the Trust that they
were satisfied with the appointment of Judge Hancke as the arbitrator and requested
that the Trust’s attorneys prepare a draft arbitration agreement. The Trust’s attorneys
responded on 29 November 2017. They indicated that Judge Hancke had agreed to
serve as arbitrator and enclosed a draft arbitration agreement to be signed by Canton
Trading, in the event that the draft was satisfactory.

[8] On 5 December 2017, Canton Trading’s attorneys responded. They indicated
that the attorney who had been working on the matter had resigned and another
attorney had been assigned to deal with the matter; they were happy with the
appointment of Judge Hancke as the arbitrator and requested a pre-arbitration
meeting on 24 January 2018. On 7 December 2017, the parties confirmed and agreed
that the pre-arbitration meeting was to be held without the arbitrator.

[9] On 24 January 2018, the pre-arbitration meeting was held. At this meeting, the
arbitration agreement was discussed and the parties agreed to the appointment of
Judge Hancke, his remuneration and their liability for payment.  During the meeting,
Canton Trading specifically requested that the following paragraph be inserted into the
pre-arbitration agreement:
‘The pre-arbitration agreement is further subject to the condition that the Defendant (Canton
Trading) must obtain the approval/consent of the Defendant’s insurer (in the event of it being
the Defendant’s version that there is no signed agreement to submit to arbitration) of the
arbitration agreement.’

[10] Canton Trading’s attorneys inserted this clause on the instructions of their
client’s insurer.  On 30 January 2018, Canton Trading’s attorneys informed the Trust’s
attorneys that they had consulted with their client. Their instructions were that the
parties had not signed the PSP and that the arbitration provision in the PSP was
therefore unenforceable. They invited the Trust’s attorneys to issue summons should
their client wish to proceed with the matter. The Trust then afforded Canton Trading
seven days to sign the amended pre-arbitration agreement. Canton Trading’s

attorneys responded on 26 February 2018. They indicated that Canton Trading does
not recognise the existence of the arbitration agreement.

[11] The Trust approached the high court on motion for an order in the following
terms:
‘(a) That the respondent be ordered to submit to arbitration to have the disputes set out in the
Arbitration Agreement which is attached to the applicant’s founding affidavit as annexure ‘’B’’s
adjudicated;
(b)  That the Respondent be ordered to pay the costs of this application.
(c)  Further and/or alternative relief.’

[12] The high court recognised that Canton Trading had set out in its answering
affidavit its version as to why no agreement had been concluded to submit any dispute
to arbitration. The high court, nevertheless, decided that it would adopt what it
considered to be the robust approach referenced in Fakie NO1. The high court
considered the issue before it to be as follows: ‘The question therefore revolves around
the veracity of the respondent’s denial, viewed in the light of the evidence as a whole.’
The high court concluded that ‘the mere fact that the document was never signed, as
has been the case in the past with several contracts since before 2011 when this one
in dispute came into existence, did not in the circumstances of this matter, necessarily,
lead to the conclusion that it did not form the basis of the agreement regulating the
relationship between the parties’. It held furthermore that, ‘the perceived disputes
raised by the respondent as to the existence and binding effect of the written document
[are] clearly untenable, palpably implausible and uncreditworthy’. The high court
consequently found that there was an arbitration agreement concluded between the
parties which had come into existence.

[13] The high court ordered Canton Trading to submit to arbitration the disputes set
out in the arbitration agreement, as amended, and that Canton Trading was to pay the
costs of the application. It granted the following order:
‘1.    The arbitration agreement, annexure B to the applicant’s founding affidavit, is amended
by the deletion of the second paragraph on page 1 thereof as well as part A and the first
sentence of Part B on page 3 thereof.

1 Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd [2006] ZASCA 52; 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA).

2.      The date of 10 March 2018 in paragraph 7.2 thereof is replaced by the date of 19 October
2018.
3.    Prayer A of the notice of motion is granted subject to the amendments in paragraphs 1
and 2 above.
4.   [The] respondent [is ordered to] pay the costs of the [application], including the costs
occasioned by the employment of senior counsel.’

[14] Canton Trading appealed to the full court and contended that, first, the high
court entered the arena between the parties and granted relief not sought. As such, it
did not exercise its discretion judicially and within the parameters prescribed by the
law. Second, the applicable legal principles in the adjudication of motion proceedings,
namely that motion proceedings are decided on the version of the respondent, was
not adhered to and the strict requirements for the application of a robust approach
were not met, especially in circumstances where neither party sought the application
of such an approach. Third, the Trust had failed to prove that there was animus
contrahendi.

[15] The full court did not agree with these contentions and found against Canton
Trading. It held that, ‘where a party relies on the provisions of Rule 6(5)(g), as the
appellant seems to have done, it is common sense, that the court is called upon to
examine the very dispute in order to determine whether it creates a genuine dispute
of fact or not.’ The full court held further that the high court, acting in terms of Rule
6(5)(g), had reasoned correctly, and exercised one of the permissible options available
to it in terms of the applicable law. The full court went on to record that ‘the appellant
conceded that a signed agreement was not a prerequisite for a written document to
have a binding effect. This concession was properly made, as it is evident from the
provisions of the Arbitration Act 42 [of] 1965, that it does call for a written agreement
to be signed in order for it to be valid and binding. The high court undertook an
extensive examination of the respective versions of the parties as they appear in the
papers and found that the appellant’s denial of the existence of an agreement was
palpably untrue and not worthy of credence, warranting the rejection of its version. I
am unable to fault the reasoning or the conclusion of the court in this respect’. The full
court went on to dismiss the appeal with costs. Thus, the appeal to this Court.

[16] Counsel for Canton Trading submitted that the case for the Trust was
delineated in paragraph 4 of its founding affidavit and later made clearer in para 2.5 of
its replying affidavit: the high court was to adjudicate upon one issue only, namely,
whether the appellant should be compelled to submit to arbitration - othing more.
Paragraph 4 of the founding affidavit reads:
‘Lest there be any confusion, the relief referred to supra does not constitute relief in terms of
which the [a]pplicant seeks to have any dispute between the parties which has arisen out of
or by virtue of any agreement between the parties adjudicated. The [a]pplicant seeks only to
compel the Respondent to submit to arbitration to have such dispute(s) adjudicated upon by
the forum agreed upon between the parties.’
Para 2.5 of the replying affidavit reads:
‘It is therefore respectfully submitted that the question whether or not a valid arbitration
agreement had been concluded between the applicant and the respondent falls squarely
within the purview and jurisdiction of the proposed arbitrator and the applicant therefore does
not move for an order in terms of which the Court is asked to make a determination in respect
of such question. What the applicant moves for is solely that the respondent be compelled to
submit to arbitration to have the question which is referred to above adjudicated by [an]
arbitrator.’

[17] In its answering affidavit before the high court at para 3 the appellant stated:
‘. . . the respondent’s case and defence [is] that there is no operative and/or binding and/or
enforceable arbitration agreement in existence between the applicant and the respondent in
terms of which the respondent can be ordered to submit to arbitration.’
Furthermore, at para 3.6 it states ‘. . . I emphasise that it is the respondent’s case and
defence that it did not enter into any written agreement with the applicant with the necessary
animus contrahendi to submit any dispute between the applicant and itself to arbitration.’
(Emphasis added.)

[18] Counsel for Canton Trading contended that initially neither of the parties
requested the high court to find whether there was a bona fide factual dispute as to
the existence of the arbitration agreement. What the Trust sought was an order
compelling Canton Trading to submit to arbitration. Instead, the high court disregarded
Canton Trading’s evidence. It decided, without being requested to do so, that there
was no real bona fide dispute of fact which could not be resolved on the papers. The
contention was made that it was common cause that there was a dispute of fact as to

whether there was an agreement to arbitrate and the only question for the high court
to decide was whether that issue should be referred to arbitration. Instead, the high
court found that an arbitration agreement existed as between the parties.

[19] To persuade this Court that the high court exceeded its powers, counsel for
Canton Trading argued that this Court in Fisher and Another v Ramahlele and Others2
set limits within which a court may exercise its discretion in motion proceedings. The
essence of this submission was to the effect that, ordinarily, a court may not mero
motu raise a new issue for adjudication not identified on the papers by the parties,
save where it was a question of law that emerged fully from the evidence, it was
necessary to decide the matter, and no party was caused prejudice.

[20] Counsel for Canton Trading further relied on Fiona Trust & Holding Corp and
others v Privalov and others3 which he contended supported the case for the appellant,
the court there stated at para 38:
‘The judge relied on Ahmed Al-Naimi v Islamic Press Agency [2000] 1 Lloyds Rep 522 to
decide as a matter of his discretion that it was more convenient for the court to decide the
question whether the charterparties and the arbitration clause were invalidated by the alleged
bribery of the owners' agents because it was best that the matter should be decided only once.
If the matter were truly a matter of his discretion that exercise of it might well be difficult to
criticise, but the discretion of the court only arises if there is truly a "question whether there is
a valid arbitration agreement". As we have sought to explain, once the separability of the
arbitration agreement is accepted, there cannot be any question but that there is a valid
arbitration agreement. Al Naimi (in which Judge Lloyd's four options are all set out and
approved) was different because in that case there was a real question as to whether any
arbitration agreement had come into existence or (perhaps more accurately) whether the
agreement that did exist under a preceding contract covered disputes that arose pursuant to
a subsequent ad hoc contract. If there is a contest about whether an arbitration agreement
had come into existence at all, the court would have a discretion as to whether to determine
that issue itself but that will not be the case where there is an overall contract which is said for
some reason to be invalid e.g. for illegality, misrepresentation or bribery and the arbitration
agreement is merely part of that overall contract. In these circumstances it is not necessary to

2 Fisher and Another v Ramahlele and Others [2014] ZASCA 88; 2014 (4) SA 614 (SCA) paras 13-15.
See also Molusi v Voges N.O and Others [2016] 6 ZACC; 2016 (3) SA 370 (CC) with reference to
Naidoo and another v Sunker [2011] ZASCA 216; [2012] JOL 28488 (SCA) and cases cited.
3  Fiona Trust & Holding Corp and others v Privalov and others [2007] 4 All ER 951 (HL).

explore further the various options canvassed by Judge Humphrey Lloyd since we do not
consider that the judge had the discretion which he thought he had.’ (Emphasis added.)

[21] In response, counsel for the Trust relied on several authorities of this Court4
and the Constitutional Court5 to make the following submission: the parties had
wrongly delineated the legal issue to be determined by the high court in their papers,
namely, to compel the appellant to submit to arbitration. For this reason, the high court
was empowered to adopt a robust approach. The presiding judge indicated his prima
facie view that the parties had it wrong on the legal issue to be determined, which view
counsel for Canton Trading had also accepted. He contended that, to indicate that the
parties accepted the course adopted by the high court, it was placed on record on
behalf of the Trust that it would abide the decision of the court. The Trust further
contended that Canton Trading had also accepted the approach which the high court
had proposed to the parties.

[22] The key issue before this Court was crystalized during argument as follows. In
the face of a dispute of fact that an agreement existed to refer disputes between the
parties to arbitration, was there any basis to find that the parties had agreed to refer
to arbitration the very dispute as to the existence of an agreement to arbitrate? If that
is not what the parties agreed to, then, was it competent for the high court to decide
the dispute as to whether there was an agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration?

[23] We proceed to consider whether the parties agreed to refer to arbitration their
dispute as to whether there existed an arbitration agreement. We shall reference this
dispute as the ‘existence dispute’. If there was a referral of the ‘existence dispute’ to
arbitration, then it follows that the high court could not decide the existence dispute,
and was in error in doing so.

[24] We have read the judgment of Phatshoane AJA (the second judgment). The
second judgment concludes that the parties indeed agreed to refer the ‘existence
dispute’ to arbitration. The second judgment places emphasis upon particular

4 Fakie NO fn 1 citing Plascon-Evans Paints (TVL) Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd [1984] ZASCA
51; [1984] 2 All SA 366 (A); fn 2.
5 Fn 2.

provisions of the PSP. The Trust contended that that the PSP set out the terms of its
agreement with Canton Trading, whereas Canton Trading denied that this was so.

[25] Clause 23 of the PSP provides that certain disputes shall be referred to
mediation, failing which, the disputes shall be submitted to arbitration. Clause 23.1, in
familiar language, reads as follows:
‘Any dispute arising between any of the Parties in regard to: the interpretation of; or the effect
of; or the carrying out of; or any other matter arising directly or indirectly out of, this Agreement
(“the Dispute”) shall be referred to a mediator agreed upon between the Parties’.
Clause 23.2 goes on to state that if the parties cannot agree on a mediator or resolve
the dispute by way of mediation, then the dispute shall be submitted and decided by
arbitration. The following words are then written, ‘Save as set out herein, the arbitration
shall be conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Arbitration
Foundation of South Africa Limited (AFSA), in force from time to time’.

[26] The second judgment sets out the AFSA rules, in relevant part. Sub-article
11.2.2 of the commercial rules of AFSA confer upon the arbitrator the power ‘to rule
on his own jurisdiction, including rulings on any dispute in regard to the existence or
validity of the arbitration agreement or the scope thereof.’ Since clause 23.2 of the
PSP requires that an arbitration must be conducted in accordance with the AFSA
rules, those rules grant a wide power to the arbitrator to rule on questions of
jurisdiction, including whether an arbitration agreement exists. This competence, the
second judgment finds, requires a duly appointed arbitrator and not the courts to
decide whether the PSP constitutes an agreement by the parties to arbitrate, and
hence whether an arbitration agreement exists.  Therefore, the high court could not
determine the existence issue, and fell into error in doing so.

[27] This line of reasoning raises important issues as to the competence of the high
court to decide whether an arbitration agreement has come into existence, in the face
of a dispute between litigants as to whether this is so.

[28] In North East,6 this Court, following a line of English cases, recognised that
parties may agree that a dispute pertaining to the validity of an agreement is to be
determined by way of arbitration, even though the arbitration clause referring the
dispute to arbitration forms part of the agreement that is subject to the validity
challenge. There is nothing contradictory in this position. The parties enjoy autonomy
to agree that categories of dispute arising between them will be submitted to arbitration
for resolution, rather than be determined by the courts.  Precisely which disputes are
to be submitted to arbitration is a question of what has been agreed, and the
interpretation of the parties’ written agreement. Generally, the parties intend that all
their disputes will be decided under a unitary jurisdiction, either by the courts or by
way of arbitration, and not under a bifurcated jurisdiction, where some disputes are
determined by the courts and others by submission to arbitration.7

[29] It follows that the parties may agree that disputes arising as to the validity or
enforceability of an agreement must be determined by way of arbitration and not
before the courts. The arbitration clause that gives expression to this agreement may
form part of the written agreement of which the validity or enforceability is disputed. If
the arbitrators uphold the challenge to the validity or enforceability of the agreement,
their decision vacates their jurisdiction to decide any further dispute arising from the
agreement. There is nothing paradoxical about this outcome. The parties agreed that
this competence was to be conferred upon the arbitrators. Their exercise of this
competence is precisely what the parties intended.

[30] This reasoning of the second judgment is predicated upon the premise that
there was an agreement between the parties as to the disputes that are to be
submitted to arbitration. Those disputes may include the enforceability and validity of
the agreement. But what if the very agreement to submit these disputes to arbitration
is itself subject to challenge? North East8 affirmed the following dictum in Heyman v
Darwins Ltd9, ‘[i]f the dispute is as to whether the contract which contains the clause
has ever been entered into at all, that issue cannot go to arbitration under the clause,

6 See North East Finance (Pty) Ltd v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd [2013] ZASCA 76; 2013 (5)
SA 1 (SCA).
7 Ibid para 21.
8 Ibid para 12.
9 Heyman v Darwins Ltd [1942] 1 All ER 337 (HL) at 343F.

for the party that denies he has ever entered into the contract is thereby denying that
he has ever joined in the submission.’

[31] Since the submission of a dispute to arbitration requires the consent of the
parties, if the very agreement that requires the submission is challenged on the basis
that such agreement never came into existence, a dispute exists as to whether there
was submission of the dispute to arbitration at all.  The problem that then arises is this:
who decides the ‘existence dispute’, the courts or the arbitrators?

[32] The question as to who decides whether a dispute goes to arbitration or
remains in the courts is one of ever greater significance, given the enhanced role that
arbitration enjoys in the resolution of disputes, both domestically and in transnational
law. This question may arise at different stages.  As the present matter illustrates,
there may be litigation at the commencement of a dispute as to whether the courts
should decide the dispute or whether it should be sent to arbitration. Sometimes,
however, the issue crystalizes for the first time before the arbitrators. They are asked
to decide whether they enjoy jurisdiction to hear the dispute.  The arbitrators may
determine the issue. Finally, a court may be called upon to decide whether the
arbitrators correctly assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, if the arbitrators’ award is
taken on review or enforcement proceedings are brought.

[33] There are a large variety of issues that may be raised by a litigant opposing
arbitration at the commencement of a dispute. It may be said that the agreement
containing the arbitration agreement is invalid or unenforceable, that no arbitration
agreement came into existence, that the arbitration agreement is not in writing, that
the dispute does not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement or that the right
to arbitration has been waived. This list, although not exhaustive, is simply illustrative.
A court faced with issues of this kind will want to steer a course between the
discouragement of time-wasting obstructionism and protecting a party from being
forced to arbitrate a dispute without their consent.

[34] Two approaches have been adopted by the courts so as to assist in deciding
challenges to arbitration that are brought by a litigant at the commencement of a
dispute. The first approach is based on separability. Ordinarily, the parties enter into

a contract that contains an arbitration clause. If the challenge is that the contract is
invalid, unenforceable, or, as here, the contract never came into existence, then it may
appear logical that the arbitration clause must fail, if the contract falls to be impugned.
But, that is not inevitably so. The arbitration clause may give expression to the intention
of the parties that the question of validity, enforceability or, indeed, the very existence
of the main contract, is to be submitted to arbitration. If that is how the arbitration
clause is properly interpreted, then the court may be inclined to conclude that the
parties concluded an arbitration agreement that is separate from the main agreement.
What the parties consented to was that the arbitrators should determine the question
of the validity or the existence of the contract, and the court should then give effect to
their consent. Absent a direct challenge to the validity or existence of the arbitration
clause, the court will in these circumstances require the parties to submit the existence
or validity dispute to arbitration.

[35] The other approach is based on the principle of competence-competence also
known as ‘Kompetenz-Kompetenz’ (referring to its German origins), or the principle of
‘compétence de la compétence’.10 This principle has a positive and a negative aspect.
The positive aspect is largely uncontroversial. Arbitrators enjoy the competence to rule
on their own jurisdiction and are not required to stay their proceedings to seek judicial
guidance. The negative aspect of the principle may be formulated as follows. Where
the dispute has already been referred to an arbitrator, the court will not rule upon the
validity, existence or scope of the arbitration agreement, but will leave these questions

10 Kompetenz-kompetenz is a jurisprudential doctrine whereby a legal body, such as a court or arbitral
tribunal, may have competence, or jurisdiction, to rule as to the extent of its own competence on an
issue before it. Regarding its German origin, see P Landolt, ‘the inconvenience or Principle: Separability
and Kompetenz-Kompetenz’. Journal of International Arbitration 30, no. 5 (2013): 511-530 at 513,
footnote 4: ‘This German name for the principle has established itself in English usage. In its original
German usage, it designated not the general notion of the arbitral tribunal’s powers to come to a
determination on its own jurisdiction but a more specific notion, i.e., a variant of the general notion.’
Furthermore, E Gaillard and J Savage (Fouchard, Gaillard and Goldman on International Commercial
Arbitration, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 1999 at 396-397) explain: ‘German legal terminology
lends a meaning to the expression which differs substantially from that which the expression is intended
to convey when used in international arbitration. If one were to follow the traditional meaning of the
expression in Germany, “kompetenz-kompetenz” would imply that the arbitrators are empowered to
make a final ruling as to their jurisdiction, with no subsequent review of the decision by any Court.
Understood in such a way, the concept is rejected in Germany, just as it is elsewhere. From a
substantive viewpoint, the paradox is all the more marked for the fact that in Germany the question of
whether the courts should refuse to examine the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal until such time as the
arbitrators have been able to rule on the issue themselves (the negative effect of the ‘competence-
competence’ principle), has never
been accepted [. . .].’

of jurisdiction for the arbitrator to decide, at least initially. But, even if the dispute has
not yet been referred to arbitration, the court may be disinclined to decide the question
of jurisdiction, unless the arbitration agreement is manifestly void. Once the arbitrator
has ruled and rendered an award, the courts may finally decide any issue of
jurisdiction, if the award is brought on review or its enforcement is sought. In this
formulation, the principle of competence-competence gives effect to the principle of
judicial restraint. The jurisdiction that has most plainly adopted negative competence-
competence is the French Code of Civil Procedure.11

[36] While the principle of competence-competence is formulated in different ways
in different jurisdictions; but it has not been applied by South African courts12,  the
principle recognises that courts will be inclined to allow the arbitrator to decide
questions of jurisdiction, unless the challenge before the court shows that there is a
manifest basis to resist the submission to arbitration. Ultimately, the application of the
principle is a matter of timing. It does not vacate the court’s ultimate power to
determine the question of an arbitrator’s jurisdiction, but defers its exercise in favour
of allowing the arbitrator to render an award, including an award on the issue of
jurisdiction. The principle thus favours the facilitation of arbitration and restricts pre-
emptive court challenges to the jurisdiction of an arbitrator, save in the clearest of
cases. Given the respect that South African law accords to the autonomy of parties to
agree to submit their disputes to arbitration, and in line with s 39(1)(b) and (c) of the
Constitution of South Africa, there is warrant for South African courts, in appropriate
cases, to consider the application of the principle of competence-competence13.

11 Article 1458 of the French New Code of Civil Procedure (1981) which reads as follows, ‘Whenever a
dispute submitted to an arbitral tribunal by virtue of an arbitration agreement is brought before a court
of the state, such court shall decline jurisdiction. If the arbitral tribunal has not yet been seized of the
matter, the court should also decline jurisdiction unless the arbitration agreement is manifestly void.’
12 Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 16 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, and Article II (3) of the New York Convention.
There is no reported case in South Africa yet on the application of the principle of competence-
competence despite a number of academic writings on the principle and its application in foreign
jurisdictions. See Kluwer Law International,2005, International Arbitration Agreements and
Competence-competence in International Commercial Arbitration; Park, WW, The Arbitrator’s
Jurisdiction to Determine Jurisdiction, in Van Den Berg JA(ed), International Arbitration 2006: Back to
Basics, ICCA Congress Series, Vol 13, ICCA & Kluwer Law International ,2007 and authorities cited.
13 Section 39(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996:
(1) When interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum—
…
(b) must consider international law; and
(c) may consider foreign law.

[37] In Zhongji14, this Court found that the arbitration clause was an agreement
distinct from the terms of the agreement of which it formed part. As in the present
matter, the arbitration clause referenced the AFSA rules which permitted the arbitrator
to decide any dispute regarding the existence, validity or interpretation of the
arbitration agreement.  The court held that the arbitration agreement must be given
effect to and it was for the arbitrator to determine the issues of jurisdiction that had
been raised before the high court. Zhongli thus recognised and applied the doctrine of
separability so as to enforce the arbitration agreement.

[38] What North East and Zhongji make plain is that the parties have wide-ranging
autonomy to agree that matters concerning the validity, enforceability and existence
of an agreement shall be referred to arbitration. If they have consented to such a
referral, then the courts will respect their agreement and will not decide these matters.
It will be for the arbitrators to do so. And this holds good, even though the arbitrators
will thereby be deciding upon their own jurisdiction. An arbitration clause may be found
to subsist separately from the main agreement of which it forms part, and may thus be
enforced, even if there is a challenge to the validity, enforceability or existence of the
main agreement. However, where there is a challenge to the arbitration agreement
itself, so as to put into question the consent of the parties to have any dispute
submitted to arbitration, the court will have to consider how best to deal with that
challenge. The court may decide the challenge. But, as discussed above, the court
may also decide that it would be preferable to decline the invitation to do so, and under
the guidance of the principle  of competence-competence, allow the arbitrators the
opportunity to first render an award on the question of their jurisdiction.

[39] Turning then to the matter before us, we are in agreement with the second
judgment that, on the papers before the high court, there was a thorough-going dispute
of fact as to whether the parties had concluded an agreement on the terms of the PSP.
Canton’s evidence was not perfunctory, and in the face of that evidence, the high court
could not, on motion, proceed to decide the matter on the basis of its assessment of
the probabilities.

14 Zhongji Development Construction Engineering Co Ltd v Kamato Copper Co Sarl [2014] ZASCA 160;
2015 (1) SA 345 (SCA) at para 50.

[40] This difficulty is compounded by the failure of the high court to recognise the
principles that we have endeavoured to set out above. The PSP referred to the AFSA
rules, which recognise the wide jurisdiction of the arbitrator to determine the existence
dispute. Canton Trading contended that no agreement was concluded embodying the
terms of the PSP, including terms that reference the commercial rules of AFSA. The
position set out in the answering affidavit of Canton Trading is that no agreement was
reached with the Trust on the terms of the PSP. Hence, there was no submission to
arbitrate the ‘existence dispute’ on the basis of the commercial rules of AFSA that give
arbitrators the power to rule on their own jurisdiction, including any dispute as to the
existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. The reference to the commercial
rules of AFSA forms part of the PSP which Canton Trading contended was never
agreed to with the Trust. Once there is a dispute of fact between the parties on this
issue, which we find to be so for the reasons fully traversed in the second judgment,
the high court was not in a position to simply enforce the commercial rules of AFSA
and have the existence dispute determined by an arbitrator under those rules.
Whether the arbitration clause in the PSP was intended to constitute a separate
agreement that referred the existence dispute to arbitration cannot be determined on
the papers. That very matter is disputed on the basis of the contradictory evidence
marshalled by the parties.  Whether the reference to the commercial rules of AFSA in
the PSP indeed constituted a separate agreement that the parties concluded to
determine the existence dispute would thus need to be referred to evidence by a court
so as to decide the issue.

[41] This is where we part company from the second judgment. The second
judgment identifies the dispute of fact between the parties as to whether agreement
was reached on the terms of the PSP, but goes on to find that this dispute falls within
the remit of the powers given to an arbitrator under the commercial rules of AFSA. We
find that where submission to those very rules is disputed, then we cannot refer the
‘existence dispute’ to an arbitrator under the commercial rules of AFSA because it is
disputed, on the basis of evidence adduced by Canton Trading that it consented to
any such submission. Put differently, the powers of an arbitrator under AFSA’s
commercial rules would permit the determination of the existence dispute, if a separate
agreement had been concluded between the parties to submit the existing dispute to

such arbitration. But, where there is a dispute on the evidence as to whether such
submission occurred, a court may not assume the consent of the parties to a referral
which is disputed.

[42] If, as we find, the high court was not in a position to find, in the face of the
dispute of fact, that the parties had concluded a separate agreement to refer the
‘existence dispute’ to arbitration, what should the high court have done then?

[43] Canton Trading contended that the high court fell into error because it
determined the dispute as to the existence of the arbitration agreement when the
parties had not moved it to do so. This, contended Canton Trading, was an
impermissible and unfair exercise of the high court’s powers. We do not agree. Once
the high court had discerned the dispute of fact as to the existence of the arbitration
agreement, provided the parties were given proper notice of the high court’s position,
there is no abuse of discretion if the court then sought to raise with the parties how
best the court should deal with the dispute. However, where the high court fell into
error was to undertake an assessment of the probabilities on the evidence before it
and then determine that there was an agreement on the terms of the PSP. What was
required was a consideration of whether the application was to be dismissed or
whether the challenge to the existence of the arbitration agreement would be better
determined by way of a referral to evidence and the consideration of the issues of
separability and the applicability of the concept of competence-competence.15 The full
court, endorsing as it did the approach of the high court, was also in error when it
dismissed the appeal.

[44] For these reasons, the following order issues.
The appeal is upheld with costs.
The order of the full court is set aside and substituted with the following order:
‘(a)
The appeal is upheld with costs.
(b)
The order of the high court is set aside and substituted with the following
order:

15 In line with what is noted in para 36 above.

“The application is remitted to the high court to determine whether the
application should be referred to evidence, and if so on what terms, or
whether the application should be dismissed”.’

_____________________
BC MOCUMIE
JUDGE OF APPEAL

______________________

D UNTERHALTER

ACTING JUDGE OF APPEAL

[45] I have read the judgment of my colleagues Mocumie JA and Unterhalter AJA
(main judgment). I am grateful for their recital of the background facts, the contentions
of the parties and the issues.  It will therefore not be necessary for me to repeat them
save to the extent necessary for present purposes. The main judgment concludes that
the appeal against the decision of the full court be upheld with costs. On the view I
take, the appeal should be upheld in part.

[46] Properly distilled, two crisp questions arise for consideration in this appeal.
First, whether the high court had a discretion to determine the existence of an
arbitration agreement between the parties. Secondly, if it had the discretion, whether
that was exercised judicially.

[47] It has always been recognized that an arbitration agreement does not
necessarily oust the jurisdiction of the courts.16 In terms of s 3(2)(b) of the Arbitration
Act 42 of 1965 (the Arbitration Act) the court may, at any time on the application of any
party to an arbitration agreement, on good cause shown, order that any dispute
referred to in the arbitration agreement not be referred to arbitration. What is
immediately discernible is that there had been no application by any of the parties for

16 Universiteit Van Stellenbosch v J A Louw (Edms) Bpk 1983 (4) SA 321 (A) at 333G.

an order that any of their disputes ought not be referred to arbitration. What was before
the high court was an application by Mr Fanti Bekker Hattingh, in his capacity as the
trustee of the Qwaha Trust, the respondent (the Trust), to compel Canton Trading 17
(Pty) Ltd t/a Cube Architects, the appellant (Canton Trading), to submit to arbitration.
Being an application for injunctive relief, it is apparent that it was not founded on s
3(2)(b).

[48] The Trust elected in its papers, having been so legally advised, to formulate a
course in respect of which its dispute had to be disposed of in the high court on these
terms:
‘Lest there be any confusion, the relief referred to supra [an order to compel Canton Trading
to submit to arbitration] does not constitute relief in terms of which the applicant seeks to have
any dispute between the parties which has arisen out of or by virtue of any agreement between
the parties adjudicated. The applicant seeks only to compel the Respondent to submit to
arbitration to have such dispute(s) adjudicated upon by the forum agreed upon between the
parties.’
At para 49 Mr Hattingh, the deponent to the Trust founding papers, states:
‘Be that as it may, the enforceability of the arbitration clause constitutes a dispute which falls
within the ambit of what the parties contemplated at the time of conclusion of the Professional
Service Provider Agreement as a dispute which would be ventilated and adjudicated upon in
arbitration.’

[49] Mr Hattingh, in his iteration in reply, stated that the Trust did not move for an
order in terms of which the court was asked to make a determination in respect of the
existence of the arbitration agreement. Significantly, he said:
‘2.3 ...(I)t is generally accepted by the South African Courts that there is no rational basis upon
which parties to an agreement will wish to have questions of validity or enforceability of an
agreement determined by one tribunal (a Court of Law) and questions of performance arising
from the same agreement decided by another tribunal (an Arbitrator or Arbitration Tribunal).
2.4
Furthermore, the applicant has been advised that, in light of an arbitrator’s powers to
determine his or her own jurisdiction in respect [of] an issue that arises from a referral to
arbitration itself, there exists no reason why a dispute about whether or not a claim arising
from the Respondents performance in terms of the agreement between the Applicant and the
Respondent is indeed arbitrable should not be decided by an arbitrator.

2.5
….(T)he question whether or not a valid arbitration agreement had been concluded
between the Applicant and Respondent falls squarely within the purview and jurisdiction of the
proposed arbitrator…
95.1
….(T)he Applicant clearly and unequivocally stated that the Applicant does not seek to
have any dispute between the parties which has arisen out of or by virtue of any agreement
between the parties adjudicated in these proceedings.’

[50] In support of its application to compel, the Trust relied on the Joint Building
Contracts Committee (JBCC) Series 200 Standard Building Agreement dated 05
February 2014 which the Trust, as the employer, concluded with Royal Anthem
Investment 12 CC (Royal Anthem), the contractor (the JBCC agreement). At para 1.2
of the contract data, employer addendum code 2101-EC, Canton Trading was
employed as a principal agent. The agreement was signed by all the parties including
Canton Trading as the principal agent. In its founding papers the Trust made
prodigious recital of the dispute settlement procedures contained in clause 40 of the
JBCC agreement which includes adjudication, mediation or arbitration. In my view, the
agreement contributes little to its course. The JBCC was to be administered and or
enforced by Canton Trading against the contractor on behalf of the Trust. On Canton
Trading’s version, which is not seriously disputed, clause 40 was applicable to
disputes between the employer, the Trust, and its agents (which would include Canton
Trading), on the one hand, and the contractor on the other.

[51] More central to the parties’ opposing positions is a contract styled an
‘Agreement for the Appointment of a Professional Service Provider’ (the PSP
agreement), allegedly concluded between the Trust, as the contractor and Canton
Trading as the service provider. The PSP agreement was drafted by Canton Trading’s
attorneys and presented to the Trust during March 2014. Neither Canton Trading nor
the Trust signed this agreement. Clause 23 of this agreement stipulates, in part, that
any dispute arising between the parties with regard to the interpretation of or the effect
of or the carrying out of or any other matter arising directly or indirectly out of the
agreement (the dispute) shall be referred to a mediator agreed upon between the
parties. Where the parties are unable, either to agree on a mediator or to resolve the
dispute by way of mediation, within 60 days of the dispute having been raised in
writing, then the dispute shall be submitted to and decided by arbitration. Crucially, for

present purposes, it further provides that ‘the arbitration shall be conducted in
accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Arbitration Foundation of Southern
Africa (AFSA), in force from time to time.’ In terms of clause 23.5 the parties shall not
be precluded from approaching any court or competent authority for an interdict or
other injunctive relief of an urgent nature.

[52] The commercial rules of AFSA, applicable to domestic arbitrations, supplement
any specific provisions of an arbitration agreement to arbitrate under the aegis of or
according to the rules of the foundation, in so far as such specific provisions are silent
on matters provided for in the rules.17  In terms of sub-article 10.1.2 of the commercial
rules:
‘(I)n cases where the party cited as defendant disputes that he was a party to the arbitration
agreement, or that the arbitration agreement is still valid and binding, or that the claim falls
within the terms of the arbitration agreement, (all of which disputes are hereinafter referred to
as "jurisdictional disputes"), then (unless the party against whom the jurisdictional dispute is
raised, informs the arbitrator that he does not wish to proceed until such dispute has been
decided by a court) first decide the jurisdictional disputes, and, if he decides them against the
party raising any or all of such disputes, then make a ruling for a period for the delivery of a
statement of defence (if not already delivered) and counterclaim, if any, in accordance with
6.1.5, and a statement of defence to any counterclaim in accordance with 6.4, and then
proceed as set out below.’
Sub-article 11.2.2 provides that the arbitrator shall have the power:
‘(T)o rule on his own jurisdiction, including rulings on any dispute in regard to the existence or
validity of the arbitration agreement or the scope thereof.’

[53] In respect of construction arbitrations, if the parties only intend that AFSA
appoint an arbitrator from its panel, the ‘Unadministered Rules’ would apply. Article
23(1) of those rules provides:
‘The Arbitral Tribunal shall have the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, including any
objections with respect to the existence or validity of the Arbitration Agreement. For that
purpose, an arbitration clause that forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement
independent of the other terms of the contract. A decision by the Arbitral Tribunal that the
contract is a nullity shall not automatically invalidate the arbitration clause.’

17 Article 3.3 of the Commercial rules of the Arbitration Foundation of Southern Africa (AFSA).

[54] The high court, in its enquiry, recorded that it became common cause when the
application to compel was argued, that the question whether the arbitration agreement
was extant had to be considered by the court. The court did so and came to the
conclusion that the arbitration agreement was in place. The exercise of this discretion
is a contentious issue in this appeal.

[55] When parties agree to refer a matter to arbitration, unless the agreement
provides otherwise, they implicitly, if not explicitly (and, subject to the limited power of
the high court under s 3(2) of the Arbitration Act), abandon the right to litigate in courts
of law and accept that they will be finally bound by the decision of the arbitrator.18
When confronted with a jurisdictional objection arbitrators are not obliged forthwith to
throw up their hands and withdraw from the matter until a court has clarified their
jurisdiction.19 The hallmark of arbitration is that it is an adjudication flowing from the
consent of the parties to the arbitration agreement who define the powers of
adjudication and are equally free to modify or withdraw that power at any time by way
of further agreement.20 The remarks by O'Regan ADCJ in Lufuno Mphaphuli21 having
considered the international and comparative law are apposite:
‘Courts should be careful not to undermine the achievement of the goals of private arbitration
by enlarging their powers of scrutiny imprudently…’
And at para 236:
‘…The international conventions make clear that the manner of proceeding in arbitration is to
be determined by agreement between the parties and, in default of that, by the arbitrator.
Thirdly, the process to be followed should be discerned in the first place from the terms of
the arbitration agreement itself. Courts should be respectful of the intentions of the parties in
relation to procedure. In so doing, they should bear in mind the purposes of private arbitration
which include the fast and cost-effective resolution of disputes.’

18 Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union of South Africa v Veldspun (Pty) Ltd  [1993]
ZASCA 158; [1994] 1 All SA 453 (A) at 169.
19 Radon Projects (Pty) Ltd v NV Properties (Pty) Ltd [2013] ZASCA 83; [2013] 3 All SA 615 (SCA);
para 28.
20 Total Support Management (Pty) Ltd and Another v Diversified Health Systems (South Africa) (Pty)
Ltd and Another [2002] ZASCA 14; 2002 (4) SA 661 (SCA) para 25.
21 Lufuno Mphaphuli & Associates (Pty) Ltd v Andrews and Another [2009] ZACC 6; 2009 (4) SA 529
(CC) para 235.

[56] In Zhongji,22 this Court had an occasion to consider whether the high court was
correct in, inter alia, dismissing an application for a declaratory order that a particular
dispute was ‘arbitrable’, in almost similar circumstances as the present, where the
respondent disputed, amongst others, having been a party to the dispute resolution
procedures provided for in the main agreement. The parties had also concluded an
interim agreement which did not contain dispute resolution procedures. In its amended
notice of motion, the appellant sought declarators that, inter alia, the respondent was
bound by the arbitral regime catered for in the main agreement in relation to disputes
in connection with or arising out of the main agreement or the execution of the works
thereunder. The main agreement provided that, unless the parties otherwise agree,
disputes between the parties ‘shall be finally settled under the Rules for the Conduct
of Arbitrations as published by the Association of Arbitrators (Southern Africa)’. Rule
12.1 of the sixth edition of the Rules of the Arbitration Association applied. It provided
that: ‘The arbitrator may decide any dispute regarding the existence, validity, or
interpretation of the arbitration agreement and, unless otherwise provided therein, may
rule on his own jurisdiction to act.’

[57] In Zhongji this Court determined that once the arbitration tribunal had been duly
appointed in terms of the main agreement, the rules of the Arbitration Association
would give the tribunal itself jurisdiction to decide the issues which may be raised
before it, including those which had been raised both in the high court and this Court.
That in light of an arbitrator’s power to determine his or her jurisdiction there was no
reason why the dispute about whether or not the claims arising from the appellant’s
performance in terms of the interim agreement was indeed arbitrable should not be
decided by the arbitration tribunal prior to an application to the high court. It was held
that the process of arbitration had to be respected. If the high court were to have
pronounced on these issues, it would have acted contrary to the provisions of the
arbitration clause by determining issues that are within the auspices of the arbitrator
in terms of the arbitration agreement. The arbitration had to be given the opportunity
to run its course before the court considers any application relating thereto.
Accordingly, the appellant’s application to the high court was premature and perhaps
unnecessary.

22 Fn 13.

[58] Insofar as the PSP agreement was, on the face of it, valid, in particular clause
23 thereof, which expressly sets out the arbitration process, it ought to have been
given effect to by the high court. The fundamental error on the part of the high court
was to approach the application on the basis that the dispute on the existence of the
arbitration agreement meant that the arbitral tribunal had no power to determine its
own jurisdiction. In fairness to the high court and the full court, it would appear that the
courts’ attention was not drawn to the provisions of the rules because none of the
courts expressed themselves on the impact which these rules would exert upon
consideration of the key question. An arbitration clause embodies an agreement that
is distinct from the terms of the agreement of which it forms a part. Sometimes the fact
that it is embodied in another agreement may affect its validity because a challenge to
the validity of the agreement in which it is incorporated is also a challenge to the validity
of the arbitration agreement.  In the absence of such a challenge, however, the
arbitration agreement must be given effect to in accordance with its terms.23

[59] Clause 23 of the purported PSP arbitration agreement read with the rules of the
AFSA delineates the powers of the arbitral tribunal, which includes the determination
of its own arbitral jurisdiction. The high court ought not to have mero motu arrogated
to itself the power assigned to the arbitrator. By so doing it interfered with the parties’
contractual autonomy allied to the notion of contractual freedom. Based on the
interspersed negation of the court’s power to interfere, as reflected in the papers, it
ought not to have decided the point. On the view I take of this matter, the question
whether the high court exercised a discretion and the nature thereof does not arise.
Otherwise stated, the high court had no jurisdiction to determine the question.

[60] The effect of an order that the high court had no jurisdiction will be that all the
proceedings and orders granted in the application are to be regarded as nullities.24 In
a footnote to MEC for Health, Eastern Cape and Another v Kirland Investments (Pty)

23 Ibid para 50.
24 Compare Moch v Nedtravel (Pty) Ltd t/a American Express Travel Service [1996] ZASCA 2; 1996 (3)
SA 1 (A) at 16A-B which concerns the effect of a recusal application.

Ltd t/a Eye & Lazer Institute25  the Constitutional Court affirmed this principle as
follows:
'In The Master of the High Court (North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria) v Motala NO and
Others 2012 (3) SA 325 (SCA) the Supreme Court of Appeal, reaffirming a line of cases more
than a century old, held that judicial decisions issued without jurisdiction or without the citation
of a necessary party are nullities that a later court may refuse to enforce (without the need for
a formal setting-aside by a court of equal standing). This seems paradoxical but is not. The
court, as the fount of legality, has the means itself to assert the dividing line between what is
lawful and not lawful. For the court itself to disclaim a preceding court order that is a nullity
therefore does not risk disorder or self-help.’

[61] The full court’s conclusion, that the high court ‘acted within the parameters of
the law’, was factually and legally misdirected. This should be dispositive of the entire
appeal. However, it would be necessary to turn attention to the second leg of the
enquiry which is a self-standing issue for adjudication. The argument and the
judgments of the high court and the full court centred around the question whether the
high court exercised its discretion judicially. The enquiry on this aspect is conducted
on the basis, accepting for argument’s sake, that the high court had jurisdiction to
determine the question of the existence of the agreement.

[62] A consideration of the question whether the high court exercised its discretion
judicially would require a brief analysis of the facts. During the early stages of 2014
the Trust wished to expand the building from which it operated its business. To put this
into effect, on 5 February 2014, the Trust concluded the JBCC agreement with Royal
Anthem. Canton Trading, a firm of architects, was appointed as the principal agent for
the project. During March 2014, a month or so following the signing of JBCC
agreement, Canton Trading’s attorneys forwarded the PSP agreement to the Trust
which, to reiterate, the parties did not sign.

[63] The Trust contends that Canton Trading was negligent in the performance of
its duties. On 2 August 2017 it invoked the arbitration clause (clause 23 of the PSP
agreement) and caused a letter of demand together with its statement of claim to be

25 MEC for Health, Eastern Cape and Another v Kirland Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Eye & Lazer
Institute [2014] ZACC 6; 2014 (3) SA 481 (CC) at 512 fn 78.

served upon Canton Trading. In this letter the Trust notified Canton Trading that it
declared a dispute in respect of Canton Trading’s incompetent execution of its
obligations as the principal agent under the JBCC agreement. That in terms of clause
23 of the PSP agreement the dispute had to be referred to mediation failing which
arbitration.

[64] During the period stretching from 11 September 2017 to 7 December 2017 an
exchange of correspondence between the Trust and Canton Trading’s attorneys
ensued. The following can be distilled from these letters: the unsigned PSP agreement
was forwarded to Canton Trading’s attorney who promised to revert on the proposed
mediation; the Trust forwarded reminders on the proposed mediation and eventually
accepted that Canton Trading resisted mediation; the Trust accordingly suggested that
arbitration be commenced forthwith and proposed two names of prospective
arbitrators; when this was met with silence on the part of Canton Trading the Trust put
a time-frame within which Canton Trading had to revert on the appointment of the
arbitrator. Canton Trading’s attorneys advised the Trust that it was taking instructions
on the appointment and was prepared ‘in principle’ to proceed to arbitration; Canton
Trading agreed to the appointment of the arbitrator.

[65] A pre-arbitration meeting was held on 24 January 2018 out of which several
disputes of fact emerged on the papers as regards what was or was not said during
the meeting. The Trust attorneys drew-up a pre-arbitration agreement on the basis of
what was professed to have been agreed to between the parties during the pre-
arbitration meeting. Amongst the issues allegedly agreed to was that Canton Trading
would be afforded an opportunity to file its statement of response, that the arbitration
would be regulated by the uniform rules of court not those of the AFSA and that the
parties would be afforded a right to appeal. Canton Trading is said to have requested
that a conditional clause be inserted in the arbitration agreement as follows:
‘The arbitration is further subject to the condition that the defendant must obtain the
approval/consent of the defendant’s insurer (in the event of it being the defendant’s version
that there is no signed agreement to submit to arbitration) of the arbitration agreement.’

I interpose that where an offer to submit to arbitration is made, the acceptance of the
offer must be unconditional and unqualified, failing which there is no proper
acceptance and no binding agreement to go to arbitration.26

[66] On the Trust’s version, the parties performed fully in terms of the PSP
agreement and submits that a verbal agreement was reached during March 2014 on
the same terms as set out in the PSP agreement. Canton Trading had forwarded its
professional fee schedule and invoiced the Trust for services rendered in terms of the
PSP agreement. Payment was duly honoured.

[67] Canton Trading, on the other hand, put up an irreconcilable version. It
frequently rendered architectural services to the Trust on various projects since 2011
apart from the services rendered during 2014 which form the basis of the present
dispute. The relationship was governed by verbal agreements. The PSP agreement,
it says, was simply an incomplete template which was made available to the Trust in
respect of the project in issue. For instance, the documents containing personnel
schedule, the plan setting out the project, the scope of work and the pricing data were
never completed. It is undisputed that the fees were negotiated and agreed upon
through e-mails during the execution of the project. Canton Trading gainsaid that the
parties conducted themselves in accordance with the contents of the document
prepared by its attorneys.

[68] Canton Trading avers that even in respect of the previous projects the standard
template would be forwarded to the Trust without any written agreement ever being
reached between the parties. It intimates that the deponent to the Trust’s papers ‘is
simply not a man interested in paper work and as a result it was never possible to
finalise and/or complete a written document with [the Trust] even in respect of the
previous projects, [that] is to say, to agree on the terms thereof and/or to finalise and
sign same.’ No written agreement, it continued, was ever entered into, discussed or
considered including an enforceable arbitration agreement in terms of which it could
be ordered to submit to arbitration.

26 Raphaely v Stephan 1915 CPD 6 at 9.

[69] This Court restated the following trite principles in National Scrap Metal:27
Where the high court decides a matter without the benefit of oral evidence, it has to
accept the facts alleged by the respondent unless they were so far-fetched, or clearly
untenable, that the court is justified in rejecting them merely on the papers. An attempt
to evaluate the competing versions of either side is thus both inadvisable and
unnecessary as the issue is not which version is the more probable but whether that
of the respondent is so far-fetched and improbable that it can be rejected without
evidence. More onerous is that the test in that regard is 'a stringent one not easily
satisfied'. In considering whether it has been satisfied it is necessary to bear in mind
that, all too often, after evidence has been led and tested by cross-examination, things
turn out differently from the way they might have appeared at first blush.28

[70] The high court recorded that the Trust relied:
‘(O)n either verbal or tacit acceptance of the provision of the agreement thereby constituting
a verbal agreement the terms of which is reflected in the agreement or at least an oral
agreement following from the alleged fact that both parties fully gave effect to the provisions
of the written agreement.’
In various parts of its affidavit the Trust appears to be ambivalent about the nature of
the arbitration agreement it purportedly concluded with Canton Trading. In para 14 of
its founding affidavit the Trust set out the ‘salient expressed, alternatively implied,
alternatively tacit terms of the verbal PSP agreement. This is reiterated in para 47 as
follows:
‘The arbitration clause which the applicant places reliance on in casu (whether in writing or
verbal or whether explicit or implied) clearly delineates that the parties are required to submit
to arbitration “any other matter arising directly or indirectly out of, this agreement”. The any
other matter which is referred to in the applicable clause, will undoubtedly include a dispute
as to the validity or enforceability of the agreement and/or the arbitration clause.’
It did not end here, in its reply the deponent state: ‘the parties agreed to submit to
arbitration in writing in terms of clause 23 ...alternatively, parties agreed verbally to
submit to arbitration.’

27 National Scrap Metal (Cape Town) (Pty) Ltd and Another V Murray & Roberts Ltd and Others [2012]
ZASCA 47; 2012 (5) SA 300 (SCA).
28 Ibid paras 21-22.

[71] The requirement that an arbitration agreement be in writing does not mean that
it has to be signed or otherwise executed by both parties to the arbitration. All that is
required is that the parties have agreed that the dispute in question, or all disputes of
a particular character, be submitted to arbitration, and that agreement has been
reduced to writing. Thus, it matters not that the agreement is oral, provided that a
written memorial thereof is produced. An oral agreement to arbitrate not reduced to
writing is therefore not subject to the provisions of the Act nor are other forms of
dispute-resolution proceeding.29 What is remarkable is that the high court accepted
that the Trust verbally agreed or ‘at least did so tacitly by giving effect’ and performing
in terms of the agreement. It is therefore beyond comprehension that it would reject
Canton Trading’s version as a bare denial.

[72] The high court found it astonishing that Canton Trading, as a professional firm
of architects, would accept its task as the principal agent on the basis of a verbal
agreement to render services at a reasonable fee. However, on the evidence, the
contract pricing data had not been completed and indeed the fees were determined
on the basis of e-mails. The high court also questioned the absence of an explanation
from Canton Trading why its attorneys made the PSP agreement available to the Trust
and had also forwarded agreements in respect of the previous projects. It also
remarked that, in its papers, Canton Trading never alleged that the Trust raised an
objection to any of the terms of the agreements at any stage during the previous
projects.

[73] I strain to fathom how the Trust would take issue with the terms of the
agreements submitted when its deponent is said to have been indifferent to any paper
work. Canton Trading’s case that the parties acted in terms of oral agreements - that
the Trust’s deponent was ‘simply not a man interested in paper work’ and that it was
never possible to agree on the terms of the agreements and finalise them, was never
seriously disputed. It is not uncommon in the business world, particularly where there
had been a longstanding beneficial contractual relationship, as in this case, for parties

29 De Lange v Presiding Bishop, Methodist Church of Southern Africa and Another. [2014] ZASCA 151;
2015 (1) SA 106 (SCA) para 46.

to conduct their business affairs without a great degree of formality. Harms JA
observed:
'Businessmen are often content to conduct their affairs with only vague or incomplete
agreements in hand. They then tend to rely on hope, good spirits, bona fides and commercial
expediency to make such agreements work.'30

[74] Much store was set by the high court that Canton Trading’s attorney took
instructions from his client prior to directing letters to the Trust’s attorneys, which
conveyed that Canton Trading was prepared to submit to arbitration. Canton Trading
says its attorney, upon receipt of the letter of 1 August 2017, which called on parties
to submit to mediation on the basis of clause 23 of the PSP agreement, on face value
assumed and accepted the accuracy of its contents. Pursuant to this, the attorney
sought from the Trust’s attorneys and was placed in possession of the PSP
agreement. His attention was not drawn to the absence of the requisite signatures on
the agreement. At all relevant times, he says, he was under the mistaken impression
that there was an agreement entered into and duly signed by the parties. When the
attorney directed correspondence to the Trust, including the e-mail of 7 November
2017, for which he was severely criticised by the high court, to the effect that ‘Our
client is not prepared to mediate. We are taking instructions on the appointment of the
arbitrator and we are obviously in principle prepared to proceed with the arbitration
process,’ he was still labouring under the bona fide, but mistaken, belief that the
agreement was in place and had not obtained instructions from Canton Trading on the
existence of a binding arbitration agreement.

[75] Canton Trading’s attorney stated that the correspondence dispatched to the
Trust’s attorneys were provisional and pragmatic logistics regarding a possible
submission to arbitration. A day prior to the pre-arbitration meeting on 23 January
2018, it dawned on him that he had been mistaken about the existence of the
arbitration agreement. On 24 January 2018, well after the pre-arbitration meeting by
the parties’ respective legal teams, Canton Trading says it pertinently instructed its
legal team that there was no arbitration agreement entered into or agreed upon. It
therefore notified the Trust of its resistance to submit to arbitration.

30   Namibian Minerals Corporation Ltd v Benguela Concessions Ltd [1996] ZASCA 140; 1997 (2) SA
548 (SCA) at 561G.

[76] The statements and conduct of an agent affords no admissible proof of the
existence or the scope of his authority.31 From the correspondence exchanged
through the use of the words ‘in principle prepared to proceed with the arbitration
process’, one gains the impression that Canton Trading’s attorneys were cautious to
make it plain that their client consented or submitted to arbitration. Their request that
a condition be inserted in the pre-arbitration agreement that Canton Trading obtain the
approval/consent of its insurer concerning the agreement to submit to arbitration, in
my view, signifies the indecision. A general mandate by a client to his attorney to
attend to a dispute by negotiating with his adversary's attorney is not a tacit
authorisation to the attorney to submit to arbitration, nor would the attorney's
submission to arbitration be incidental to such a brief.32

[77] There is no evidence to controvert Canton Trading’s attorney’s lack of express
authority to consent to the arbitration. Neither is there any evidence to show that he
reported to his client the outcome of the negotiations between himself and the
adversary’s attorney. The criticism levelled against Canton Trading’s attorney by the
high court, that ‘it is unthinkable that an experienced attorney’ would take a decision
to submit to arbitration without the client’s instruction, while it may be justified does not
take the matter any further absent evidence showing Canton Trading’s express
consent. For acts of great prejudice an attorney needs a special mandate.33

[78] There was, in this case, intractable disputes of fact not capable of resolution by
means of motion proceedings. From the aforegoing limited analysis of the issues
raised in the affidavits, it can hardly be said that Canton Trading’s version was so far-
fetched or untenable that the high court was justified in rejecting it merely on the
papers. To reiterate, it is a rare occurrence that the courts would reject the
respondent’s version on this basis, even if it is improbable in a number of respects,
because our courts are always alive to the potential for evidence and cross-

31 Inter-Continental Finance and Leasing Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Stands 56 and 57 Industria Ltd and
Another 1979 (3) SA 740 (W) at 750B.
32 Ibid at 751H.
33 Bikitsha v Eastern Cape Development Board and Another 1988 (3) SA 522 (E) at 527I; Ras v Liquor
Licensing Board, Area No 11, Kimberley 1966 (2) SA 232 (C) at 237E - 238C.

examination to alter its view of the facts and the plausibility of evidence.34 The adoption
of a robust approach by the high court in disposing the application, in my view,
constitutes a material misdirection. Not only is it at variance with the well-established
principles applicable to motion proceedings, but it also amounted to a denial of a fair
trial of issues. Insofar as the full court found differently it erred and its decision cannot
be supported. As I see it, the issues raised would not have merited the dismissal of
the application but would have required the leading of oral evidence. In light of my
conclusion that it was not open to the high court to decide the issues that fell within
the aegis of the arbitral regime the remittal of the matter does not arise.

[79] On the question of relief: it was premature for the Trust to have approached the
high court to compel Canton Trading to submit to arbitration because s 15(2) of the
Arbitration Act and the rules of the AFSA provide adequate remedies in instances of
defaulting defendants. However, Canton Trading’s rigid stance, in flatly refusing to
submit to arbitration, is problematic. The order prayed for in the notice of motion is that
Canton Trading submit to arbitration to have the disputes as set out in the arbitration
agreement, which is attached to the Trust’s founding affidavit as annexure B,
adjudicated. Annexure B is a revised version of the arbitration agreement which the
Trust attorneys drafted following the pre-arbitration meeting of 24 January 2018 which,
as alluded to, was marred by disputes of fact. It would be undesirable to make an order
which compels the parties to attend arbitration on the basis of that agreement.

[80] Evidently, a period of four years has lapsed since the Trust declared the dispute
in terms of clause 23 of the PSP agreement with no end in sight. Section 19(d) of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 empowers this Court to render any decision which the
circumstances may require. The inherently pragmatic approach, actuated by dictates
of justice and common fairness to the parties, would be to issue an order which
compels Canton Trading to submit to arbitration. I can conceive of no prejudice.
However, it would be objectionable to attempt to define the terms of reference for the
arbitration. It lies within the domain of the arbitrator and the parties to delineate the
issues and the scope of the arbitration process.

34 Media 24 Books (Pty) Ltd v Oxford University Press Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd [2016] ZASCA 119;
2017 (2) SA 1 (SCA) para 36; see also National Scrap Metal (supra) fn 25 paras 21-22.

[81] For all the above reasons, I would uphold the appeal in part. Save for the costs
of the proceedings in the high court and the full court, which the Trust ought to bear,
insofar as both parties would have achieved partial success on appeal, I would have
made no costs order for the proceedings in this Court.

[82] Accordingly, I would have ordered that:
The appeal is upheld in part.
Canton Trading 17 (Pty) Ltd, the appellant, is ordered to submit to arbitration.
The order of the full court is set aside and in its place is substituted the following:
‘The appeal is upheld with costs.
The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with the following:
“The application is dismissed with costs”.’

_________________
M V PHATSHOANE
ACTING JUDGE OF APPEAL

Appearances:

For appellant:

G F Heyns SC
Instructed by:

VDT Attorneys, Pretoria

Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein

For respondent:

P Zietsman SC and R van der Merwe
Instructed by:

P D Yazbek,
Lovius Block, Bloemfontein
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
MEDIA SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
From:
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal
Date:
01 December 2021
Status:
Immediate
The following summary is for the benefit of the media in the reporting of this case and does not
form part of the judgments of the Supreme Court of Appeal
Canton Trading 17 (Pty) Ltd t/a Cube Architects v Fanti Bekker Hattingh N O (479/2020) [2021]
ZASCA 163 (01 December 2021)

Today the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) upheld the appeal against an order of the Free State Division
of the High Court, Bloemfontein (Naidoo ADJP and Daffue and Reinders JJ sitting as court of appeal.)
with costs.

The appellant, Canton Trading 17 (Pty) Ltd (Canton Trading), rendered professional architectural
services to the respondent, Qwaha Trust (the Trust). After sometime, the Trust alleged that former had
failed to perform its duties and Canton Trading’s services were terminated. In terms of the (unsigned)
Professional Service Providers Agreement (PSP) concluded between the parties, the Trust proposed that
a mediator be appointed to resolve the dispute. If mediation failed, arbitration would result.
Notwithstanding the agreement, Canton Trading refused to participate in the arbitration.

Issues that the first court, the full court and this Court (respectively) had to determine are: whether the
court had the discretion to decide the question whether the parties consented to refer a dispute to
arbitration when there is a dispute of fact as to their consent, the discretion of the high court to adjudicate
the question of the existence of an arbitration agreement and whether the application of a robust
approach to adjudicate disputes of facts was necessary in the circumstances.

The SCA was of the view that the high court erred in the assessment of probabilities based on the
evidence before it and making a determination whether there had been an agreement to arbitrate. Rather,
the high court should have considered whether the application should have been dismissed or whether
a challenge to the existence agreement could not have been established through referral for evidence.

The majority judgment, upheld the appeal with costs and substituted the order of the full court with an
order that the appeal is upheld with costs and the matter is remitted to the high court for determination
whether the application should have been referred to evidence or whether it should be dismissed.

In a separate dissent, the minority held that, the PSP concluded between the parties read with the rules
of the Arbitration Foundation of Southern Africa (AFSA) delineated the powers of the arbitral tribunal,
which included the tribunal’s determination of its own arbitral jurisdiction. Accordingly, it was not open

to the high court to decide the issues that fell within the aegis of the arbitral regime. It was premature
for the Trust to have approached the high court to compel Canton Trading to submit to arbitration.  2

However, in light of Canton Trading’s rigid stance, in flatly refusing to submit to arbitration, the
inherently pragmatic approach, actuated by dictates of justice and common fairness to the parties, would
be to issue an order which compelled Canton Trading to submit to arbitration.  In the result, the minority
would have upheld the appeal in part.

--------oOo--------