Anglogold Ltd v Mthombeni and Others (J2662/00) [2001] ZALC 8 (31 January 2001)

Anglogold Ltd v Mthombeni and Others (J2662/00) [2001] ZALC 8 (31 January 2001)

The court held that the applicant failed to establish any of the grounds for review under section 33(1) of the Arbitration Act. The arbitrator's decision was based on the evidence presented, which did not sufficiently prove that the gold concentrate was the company's property or that the employee was in possession of it. The arbitrator's reasoning, even if erroneous, did not amount to misconduct, gross irregularity, or mala fides. The charge against the employee was not proven on a balance of probabilities, and the arbitrator's conclusion was not grossly unreasonable. The application to set aside the award was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2001] ZALC 8
Parties
Applicant: Anglogold Ltd; Respondent: Mzungulu Mthombeni; Respondent: National Union of Mineworkers; Respondent: L P Mosiuoa
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 January 2001
Case Number
J2662/00
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Gering
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Misconduct by Arbitrator, Onus of Proof in Dismissal, Substantive Fairness, Mining Rights Act, Private Arbitration
Labour Law Alternative Dispute Resolution Review of Arbitration Award Misconduct by Arbitrator Onus of Proof in Dismissal Substantive Fairness Mining Rights Act Private Arbitration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anglogold Ltd

Applicant

Mzungulu Mthombeni

Respondent

National Union of Mineworkers

Respondent

L P Mosiuoa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed misconduct in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's award was reviewable under section 33(1) of the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant discharged the onus of proving the charge against the employee on a balance of probabilities.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to establish any of the grounds for review under section 33(1) of the Arbitration Act. The arbitrator's decision was based on the evidence presented, which did not sufficiently prove that the gold concentrate was the company's property or that the employee was in possession of it. The arbitrator's reasoning, even if erroneous, did not amount to misconduct, gross irregularity, or mala fides. The charge against the employee was not proven on a balance of probabilities, and the arbitrator's conclusion was not grossly unreasonable. The application to set aside the award was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.