Anix Trading, a South African import and export company associated with South African businessman Peter Makama, remains embroiled in a legal dispute over a R20.04 million ($1.1 million) arbitration award after the Johannesburg High Court suspended further enforcement proceedings pending the determination of a municipality’s appeal application.

In a ruling delivered on October 8, 2026, Acting Judge H P van Nieuwenhuizen held that Lesedi Local Municipality’s application for leave to appeal became effective on May 7, 2025, preventing Anix Trading from continuing execution proceedings against the local government authority.

Court suspends enforcement of R20 million award

The dispute stems from work performed by Anix Trading for Lesedi Local Municipality and subsequently referred to private arbitration before Advocate L J Mboweni.

On October 21, 2024, Judge Vally made the arbitration award an order of court, directing the municipality to pay R20.04 million, together with specified legal costs, including costs calculated on an attorney-and-own-client scale.

Anix Trading subsequently pursued enforcement of the judgment. A writ of execution bore a registrar’s stamp dated April 2, 2025, while an electronic filing record was dated May 5. Execution was attempted on May 6, prompting the municipality to challenge the writ and seek to prevent further enforcement.

The municipality argued that its application for leave to appeal had been filed in October 2024, which would have meant that enforcement was already suspended when the writ was issued.

However, Van Nieuwenhuizen found insufficient evidence that the application had been lodged with the registrar through the applicable electronic filing platform at that time. The court determined that the application was electronically filed on May 6, 2025, and became effective the following day.

Anix Trading barred from further execution

The judge dismissed the municipality’s request to set aside the writ and resulting attachment but ruled that further execution must stop from May 7, 2025.

The registrar was restrained from issuing another writ, while Anix Trading and the sheriff were prohibited from taking further enforcement steps, including realising attached property or transferring attached funds to the company.

Anix Trading also sought permission to execute the award while the appeal application remained pending, arguing that prolonged non-payment had affected its financial planning, cash flow and commercial sustainability.

The court rejected the request, finding insufficient evidence to establish the exceptional circumstances and cumulative irreparable-harm requirements under section 18(3) of the Superior Courts Act.

Payment dispute remains unresolved

The ruling did not determine the merits of the municipality’s proposed appeal or its allegations concerning the arbitration award. It also did not invalidate the existing writ or order the release of property already attached.

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the municipality’s application challenging the writ. Anix Trading was ordered to pay the municipality’s costs of the counterapplication, including the costs of two counsel where employed, with counsel’s fees to be taxed on scale B. An earlier costs order issued in June 2025 remains unaffected.

The ruling leaves the R20.04 million payment dispute unresolved, with further enforcement suspended pending the outcome of the municipality’s application for leave to appeal.