Checkport SA (Pty) Ltd v Tsatsimpe No and Others (JR874/05) [2007] ZALCJHB 27 (22 February 2007)

Checkport SA (Pty) Ltd v Tsatsimpe No and Others (JR874/05) [2007] ZALCJHB 27 (22 February 2007)

The court held that the applicant was properly notified of the arbitration hearing and failed to attend or apply for a postponement. The commissioner was not required to consider the applicant's prospects of success in the rescission application, as section 144(a) of the Labour Relations Act only requires that the award be made erroneously in the absence of a party. The applicant failed to place facts before the commissioner indicating that the default award was made erroneously. The court found that the applicant's conduct demonstrated disregard for the CCMA's authority and that there was no irregularity in the commissioner's ruling. Accordingly, the review application was dismissed with...

Citation
[2007] ZALCJHB 27
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 Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 February 2007
Case Number
JR874/05
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Review application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Francis
Legal Topics
Rescission of Award, Default Judgment, Audi Alteram Partem, Ccma Jurisdiction
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Award Default Judgment Audi Alteram Partem Ccma Jurisdiction

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 2 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

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant was properly notified of the arbitration hearing and failed to attend or apply for a postponement. The commissioner was not required to consider the applicant's prospects of success in the rescission application, as section 144(a) of the Labour Relations Act only requires that the award be made erroneously in the absence of a party. The applicant failed to place facts before the commissioner indicating that the default award was made erroneously. The court found that the applicant's conduct demonstrated disregard for the CCMA's authority and that there was no irregularity in the commissioner's ruling. Accordingly, the review application was dismissed with...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed with costs.