Cashbuild Ltd v Rantho NO and Others (JR1983/09) [2018] ZALCJHB 86 (2 March 2018)

Cashbuild Ltd v Rantho NO and Others (JR1983/09) [2018] ZALCJHB 86 (2 March 2018)

The court found that the reasoning of the first respondent in the arbitration award was irrational and not supported by the uncontested evidence presented by the applicant. The analysis provided by the first respondent was described as nonsensical, leading to an unreasonable finding. The third respondent's dismissal was found to be both substantively and procedurally fair, as the evidence established misappropriation of funds and dishonesty. The arbitration award was therefore reviewed and set aside.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 86
Parties
Applicant: Cashbuild Ltd; Respondent: S M Rantho N.O; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Servaas Daniel van Heerden
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 March 2018
Case Number
JR1983/09
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside; dismissal of third respondent confirmed as fair.
Judges
S July
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Misappropriation of Funds, Dishonesty, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Misappropriation of Funds Dishonesty Procedural Fairness

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cashbuild Ltd

Applicant

S M Rantho N.O

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Servaas Daniel van Heerden

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued by the first respondent was reasonable and supported by the evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the third respondent was both substantively and procedurally fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the reasoning of the first respondent in the arbitration award was irrational and not supported by the uncontested evidence presented by the applicant. The analysis provided by the first respondent was described as nonsensical, leading to an unreasonable finding. The third respondent's dismissal was found to be both substantively and procedurally fair, as the evidence established misappropriation of funds and dishonesty. The arbitration award was therefore reviewed and set aside.

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; arbitration award set aside; dismissal of third respondent confirmed as fair.

Orders

  • The arbitration award dated 4 June 2009, under case number LP4452 - 08, is reviewed and set aside.
  • The dismissal of the third respondent was both substantially and procedurally fair.