Checkport SA (Pty) Ltd v Tsatsimpe NO and Others (JR874/05) [2007] ZALC 4; (2007) 28 ILJ 1070 (LC) (22 February 2007)

Checkport SA (Pty) Ltd v Tsatsimpe NO and Others (JR874/05) [2007] ZALC 4; (2007) 28 ILJ 1070 (LC) (22 February 2007)

The court found that the applicant was properly notified of the arbitration hearing and failed to attend or apply for a postponement. The commissioner was correct in refusing the rescission application, as the applicant did not demonstrate that the default award was made erroneously in its absence. The applicant's conduct showed disregard for the CCMA's authority, and there was no irregularity in the commissioner's ruling. The requirement to show good cause does not apply to CCMA rescission applications under section 144(a), and prospects of success need not be considered. The review application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2007] ZALC 4
Parties
Applicant: Checkport SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mapalo Tsatsimpe N.O.; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Govender, Yoshan
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 February 2007
Case Number
JR874/05
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Rescission Ruling
Outcome
Review application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Francis
Legal Topics
Rescission of Award, Default Arbitration, Unfair Dismissal, Ccma Jurisdiction, Audi Alteram Partem
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Award Default Arbitration Unfair Dismissal Ccma Jurisdiction Audi Alteram Partem

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Checkport SA (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mapalo Tsatsimpe N.O.

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Govender, Yoshan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Rescission Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner erred in refusing to rescind the default arbitration award.
  2. 2 Whether the default award was made erroneously in the absence of the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner was obliged to consider the applicant's prospects of success in the rescission application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was properly notified of the arbitration hearing and failed to attend or apply for a postponement. The commissioner was correct in refusing the rescission application, as the applicant did not demonstrate that the default award was made erroneously in its absence. The applicant's conduct showed disregard for the CCMA's authority, and there was no irregularity in the commissioner's ruling. The requirement to show good cause does not apply to CCMA rescission applications under section 144(a), and prospects of success need not be considered. The review application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed with costs.