Bakone Minerals v Malubete NO and Others (JR1363/09) [2010] ZALCJHB 10 (21 December 2010)

Bakone Minerals v Malubete NO and Others (JR1363/09) [2010] ZALCJHB 10 (21 December 2010)

The court found that, based on the record of the arbitration proceedings, only one reasonable conclusion could be drawn: the Third Respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving that they had in fact been dismissed by the Applicant. As a result, the arbitration award was set aside and it was ordered that the Third Respondents were not dismissed. There was no need to refer the matter back for arbitration before a different Commissioner.

Citation
[2010] ZALCJHB 10
Parties
Applicant: Bakone Minerals; Respondent: Nandu Malubete N.O.; Respondent: Council for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA); Respondent: Frans Makgopa & 1 Other
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 December 2010
Case Number
JR1363/09
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside; Third Respondents found not to have been dismissed.
Judges
Coetzee
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Review, Compensation Award, Onus of Proof
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Review Compensation Award Onus of Proof

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bakone Minerals

Applicant

Nandu Malubete N.O.

Respondent

Council for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA)

Respondent

Frans Makgopa & 1 Other

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Third Respondents were dismissed by the Applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award finding unfair dismissal was reasonable.
  3. 3 Whether the compensation awarded was excessive.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, based on the record of the arbitration proceedings, only one reasonable conclusion could be drawn: the Third Respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving that they had in fact been dismissed by the Applicant. As a result, the arbitration award was set aside and it was ordered that the Third Respondents were not dismissed. There was no need to refer the matter back for arbitration before a different Commissioner.

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside; Third Respondents found not to have been dismissed.

Orders

  • The arbitration award issued on 19 April 2009 under case number LP 4569 – 07 is set aside.
  • It is ordered that the Third Respondents were not dismissed by the Applicant.