Civils v Smith and Others (P550/11) [2014] ZALCPE 28 (3 September 2014)

Civils v Smith and Others (P550/11) [2014] ZALCPE 28 (3 September 2014)

The court found that the settlement agreement was clear and unambiguous in providing for reinstatement on the same terms and conditions as previously held by the third respondent. The arbitrator's reliance on his own recollection was improper, but even disregarding that, the evidence supported the finding that the agreement did not contemplate a fixed term contract. The applicant's attempt to vary the agreement's terms through review proceedings was not permissible; rectification should be sought directly in the Labour Court. The subsequent conduct of the parties could not alter the unambiguous terms of the agreement. There was sufficient material before the arbitrator to make the...

Citation
[2014] ZALCPE 28
Parties
Applicant: Mawethu Civils; Respondent: Smith S N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Mazoka Mabuthi
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 September 2014
Case Number
P550/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing of Review Application
Outcome
Application to review and set aside the ruling of the first respondent is dismissed with costs.
Judges
R Lagrange
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreement, Section 142a Lra, Unfair Dismissal, Rectification of Contract, Waiver of Rights
Labour Law Civil Procedure Settlement Agreement Section 142a Lra Unfair Dismissal Rectification of Contract Waiver of Rights

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mawethu Civils

Applicant

Smith S N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Mazoka Mabuthi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing of Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement reflected the true intention of the parties regarding reinstatement.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator committed a reviewable irregularity by relying on his own recollection and not convening a hearing.
  3. 3 Whether the subsequent conduct of the parties could alter the terms of the settlement agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the settlement agreement was clear and unambiguous in providing for reinstatement on the same terms and conditions as previously held by the third respondent. The arbitrator's reliance on his own recollection was improper, but even disregarding that, the evidence supported the finding that the agreement did not contemplate a fixed term contract. The applicant's attempt to vary the agreement's terms through review proceedings was not permissible; rectification should be sought directly in the Labour Court. The subsequent conduct of the parties could not alter the unambiguous terms of the agreement. There was sufficient material before the arbitrator to make the...

Court Disposition

Application to review and set aside the ruling of the first respondent is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the ruling of the first respondent under case number ECPE 5112-10 on 22 February 2011 is dismissed with costs.