Dispute Resolution

Complex working relationships among individuals, companies and other organisations means that disagreements are inevitable. This is particularly true when people from diverse cultures work together in a competitive marketplace. Thus, the risk that cross-border business activities will result in disputes in unfamiliar jurisdictions is real.

We are proud to be regarded as one of the pre-eminent dispute resolution teams in Africa.

The size of our team means that we are able to offer a high degree of specialisation across a variety of areas, with particular experience in:

• Tax
• Employment
• Governance, Compliance and Investigations
• Restructuring
• Shipping and Logistics

Our clients include large national clients in African jurisdictions where we have representation as well as multinationals and international law firms acting on their behalf, non-government entities, governments, state-owned entities and financial institutions.

Chambers and Partners, 2022

‘a well-regarded team and a rounded contentious practice’

‘ long-standing experience in a broad spectrum of commercial disputes’

‘ leverages its African network to adeptly provide representation to clients on multi-jurisdictional matters’

‘enlisted as counsel by a multitude of clients …, drawing further respect for its involvement in international arbitration’

Legal 500, 2021

Client feedback includes:

‘one of our key go-to firms’

‘reliable and swift in their responses’

‘operate to a highly professional standard and we would recommend their services’

• We assisted Transnet SOC in opposing a class action by pensioners brought against the Transport Pension Fund, the Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund and Transnet SOC seeking declaratory relief and related damages. This is the first class action certified in South Africa and the largest civil action claim in South Africa to date.

• We are advising the South African Department of Economic Development on a High Court application brought by the Association of Meat Importers and Exporters (AMIE) in two parts. The first part  seeks to interdict the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) from approaching the Trade and Development Commission (TDC) under the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) to impose a safeguard on imported frozen chicken. The second  is to declare the DTI’s decision to continue the safeguard investigation under the EPA, when it had begun under the Trade Development and Cooperation Agreement (TDCA), as unlawful. The applicant seeks an order for respondents to formulate and publish proper guidelines for applications for safeguards under EPA, and then to ensure such approach is followed before approaching the TDC for a safeguard. 

• We advised the South African Department of Economic Development on a critical tax matter where Cart Blanche Marketing cc (the applicant) sought to have South Africa’s Import Control Regulations reviewed and set aside.

• We advised the South African Post Office (SAPO) on its complaint to the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa that PostNet is encroaching on the reserved postal services exclusively licensed to SAPO.  SAPO is the only licensed provider of ordinary postal services. The ability of alternative providers to provide certain services is a key factor in how the postal services market is structured. This is a key case in the sector.

• We helped Royal Bafokeng Platinum Mine successfully defend enforcement proceedings threatened under the Mine Health and Safety Act and the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act.

• We assisted the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) in obtaining an interdict regarding the rescission of court orders following successful arbitration awards. The court orders had been granted as a result of settlement agreements concluded without proper authority and due process within PRASA thereby compromising governance controls within PRASA.

• We assisted Kgalagadi Pipeline JV (a consortium in which Group Five Construction is the lead party) in defending interdict proceedings against the implementation of a contract awarded to the consortium by Sedibeng Water, a regional water utility based in the Northern Cape. The interdict proceedings sought to halt the implementation of a ZAR 1.2 billion contract to install a water pipeline in a remote area of the Northern Cape. Judicial review proceedings were subsequently launched, also on an urgent basis, which sought to set aside the award of the tender on various grounds provided for in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000. We were successful in opposing these judicial review proceedings and recovered significant costs in favour of our client.

• We assisted Business Unity South Africa to institute proceedings against the Minister of Higher Education and Training to set aside unlawful regulations made in terms of the Skills Development Act relating to the SETA grant system.

• We assisted Eskom Holdings by completing investigations into past corruption and the removal of various executives including former CEOs Matshela Koko and Sean Maritz. We further launched review proceedings to assist Eskom recover ZAR 1.6 billion from McKinsey and Trillian and have since been appointed to assist it with the Zondo Commission into State Capture.

• On 26 July 2018, Bowmans obtained a victory on appeal for its client, the Steve Biko Foundation.

• We assisted Royal Bafokeng Platinum Mine to seek an interdict and declaratory relief compelling the transfer of employees following the termination of its outsourced mining contract with JIC/ ABMS. JIC/ ABMS is a contract miner that provided all the employees to run the mining operation. It denied that Section 197 automatic transfer provisions applied and refused to transfer employees.

• We advised Cell C during an investigation by the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa into whether Cell C was required to obtain regulatory approval prior to its multi-billion Rand recapitalisation and whether it had breached the approval requirements.

• We are involved in a ground-breaking and complex multi-stakeholder facilitation including Anglo American South Africa Ltd, AngloGold Ashanti Ltd, Harmony Gold Mining Company Ltd, Gold Fields Ltd, Sibanye Gold Ltd, and African Rainbow Minerals Ltd, seeking resolution to a class action, and to establish future legal frameworks which are fair to employees and that ensure the future sustainability of companies in the gold mining industry.

• We advised the Public Servants Association of South Africa (the largest, politically non-affiliated trade union in the public service) on a matter directly impacting its members’ right to strike. We successfully asserted the union’s right to strike over unilateral changes to working hours of front office staff nationally by the Department of Correctional Services (employees being required to work on Saturdays without additional pay). The matter was ultimately heard by the Constitutional Court.

• We assisted the Council of the Advancement of the South African Constitution (CASAC) in  instituting proceedings in the Constitutional Court against the President of South Africa to compel him to fulfil his constitutional obligations and assent to the Financial Intelligence Centre Amendment Bill (FICA Bill).

• Commercial property litigation relating to the renewal of a lease in respect of one of the Group’s key stores in Johannesburg.

• Defending a claim brought in the Equality Court by inter alia the Agency for New Agenda and the Black Business Forum on the basis that it is alleged that SABMiller Plc and SAB has an official policy of racial exclusion in relation to the procurement of goods and services.

• Defending the largest class action claim in South Africa to date brought by pensioner members of two of Transnet’s retirement funds.

• Arbitration proceedings between the Government of Lesotho and a consortium which constructed and manages the Lesotho State Hospital.  The main member of the consortium is Netcare, a listed company in South Africa and one of South Africa’s leading hospital groups.  Matter involves complicated interpretation of contract and amounts which each party owes to the other.  Matter is obviously important since it involves representing a government in regard to its state hospital.  Tim Gordon-Grant leads the legal team and is responsible for all strategic and other decisions in dealing with the matter.

• Acted jointly for the Bombela Concession Company (the concession holding company for a collection of construction companies who constructed the Gautrain) and the Gauteng Provincial Government in relation to one of the largest, if not the largest, commercial settlements in the history of South Africa’s construction industry (valued at ZAR 1.2 billion), by facilitating the lengthy negotiations between the parties and in drafting the settlement agreement.

• Acted for The South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd in defending a claim brought by a carrier company providing logistics services to SAB for damages resulting from an alleged breach of a distribution agreement.

• Secured an extremely favourable settlement for long-term client of the firm, Afrox, in arbitration proceedings against ArcelorMittal South Africa around the enforcement of a long term gas supply agreement.  ArcelorMittal is South Africa’s largest supplier of steel.

  The team was led by Tim Gordon-Grant who had been responsible for all strategic and litigation decisions in the matter since it commenced in 2012.  He was supported by Lyndal Anderson and Nigel Wright.  The quantum of the claim was approximately ZAR 300 million.

• Various litigation relating to team poaching and unlawful competition.

• Defending a claim brought by 150 former owner drivers, in the High Court in Pretoria claiming an amount of R6.3 billion in damages from SAB for allegedly having unlawfully terminated their owner driver contracts.

• Defending a claim brought by 150 former owner drivers, in the High Court in Pretoria claiming an amount of R6.3 billion in damages from SAB for allegedly having unlawfully terminated their owner driver contracts.

• A David and Goliath struggle by a small privately held company owned by two brothers to extract payment from the giant pharmaceuticals multinational group, Novartis.  Novartis opposed every step which was taken and the matter proceeded through a lengthy and prolonged trial in the South Gauteng High Court which awarded judgment in favour of Maphil.  The matter then proceeded to appeal in the Supreme Court of Appeal and resulted in the handing down of a significant recent judgment regarding the interpretation of contracts in South African law and which had had a notable impact on South African jurisprudence in this area.  It has been reported and can be found at Novartis v Maphil 2016 (1) SA 518 (SCA).