Cekiso and Another v Building Industry Bargaining Council and Others (C554/2019) [2021] ZALCCT 9 (17 May 2021)

Cekiso and Another v Building Industry Bargaining Council and Others (C554/2019) [2021] ZALCCT 9 (17 May 2021)

The court found that the applicants failed to discharge the onus to prove that they were dismissed by the third respondent. The evidence showed that their employment was project-based, and there was no credible evidence of a dismissal on 25 January 2019. The Commissioner’s inquisitorial approach did not render the award reviewable, and the outcome was reasonable given the facts and the record. The applicants’ dissatisfaction with the process did not amount to a legal ground for review.

Citation
[2021] ZALCCT 9
Parties
Applicant: Malibongwe Cekiso; Applicant: Sipho Alex Makibi; Respondent: Building Industry Bargaining Council; Respondent: LM Taylor-Commissioner; Respondent: Moss Construction & Timberframe Homes
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 May 2021
Case Number
C554/2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Review application dismissed.
Judges
Rabkin-Naicker
Legal Topics
Dismissal, Onus of Proof, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Dismissal Onus of Proof Review of Arbitration Award

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

Malibongwe Cekiso

Applicant

Sipho Alex Makibi

Applicant

Building Industry Bargaining Council

Respondent

LM Taylor-Commissioner

Respondent

Moss Construction & Timberframe Homes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants discharged the onus to prove that they were dismissed by the third respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award is reviewable on the grounds advanced by the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to discharge the onus to prove that they were dismissed by the third respondent. The evidence showed that their employment was project-based, and there was no credible evidence of a dismissal on 25 January 2019. The Commissioner’s inquisitorial approach did not render the award reviewable, and the outcome was reasonable given the facts and the record. The applicants’ dissatisfaction with the process did not amount to a legal ground for review.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.