The discomfort of the appellant is derived wholly from its own sublime bungling of the case it claims to have had.  An elementary fact about litigation is that if you need to rely on facts you need to adduce evidence of those facts.  The appellant tried to do without adducing evidence in advancing its case.  The evidential deficiencies seem not to be really in dispute, but instead the arbitrator is alleged to have acted irregularly by not being proactive to shepherd the appellant’s representative from the shadows of his forensic ineptitude onto the bright uplands of cogency.  The critique is unwarranted.  The record reveals that the arbitrator offered the usual hints and prompts and cautions appropriate to steering a litigant towards the basic requirements of an effective presentation of evidence.  To demand more of an arbitrator would imperil the impartiality of the arbitrator.

Sutherland JA in Thanda Royal Zulu Football Club v Lester NO (DA8/14) [2015] ZALAC 7 (21 April 2015) at para [4].