Bantry Construction Services (Pty) Ltd v Raydin Investments (Pty) Ltd

Raydin Investments (Pty) Ltd engaged Bantry Construction Services (Pty) Ltd under a written building contract to construct a factory and offices in Johannesburg. After completion and the issue of the final certificate, cracks appeared in the plasterwork and floors. Raydin alleged poor workmanship, while Bantry contended the cracks were normal settlement cracks. In terms of the dispute resolution clause of the contract, the matter was referred to arbitration. An arbitrator was appointed, inspections in loco were conducted, and various reports and affidavits were submitted. Bantry later contended that the arbitration had lapsed under section 23 of the Arbitration Act due to delays and refused further participation. Despite this, the arbitrator issued an award in favour of Raydin for damages. Raydin applied to the High Court to have the award made an order of court under section 31(1) of the Arbitration Act. Bantry opposed but failed timeously to bring a proper review application to set aside the award.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the arbitration award was properly made an order of court.

The case reaffirms the limited scope of judicial intervention in arbitration and underscores the procedural requirement that a dissatisfied party must actively and timeously invoke the statutory review mechanism. It clarifies that opposition to an application to make an award an order of court cannot substitute for a proper review under section 33 of the Arbitration Act.