Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Labour Court

Dayeni v Container Link (J814/01) [2001] ZALC 207 (14 November 2001)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court held that since the respondent was not present at the arbitration hearing and the award was obtained in its absence, it would be prejudicial to make the award an order of court without affording the respondent an opportunity to apply for rescission. The only remedy available to the respondent is to approach the CCMA for rescission under section 144 of the Labour Relations Act. The court found no evidence of bad faith or abuse of process by the respondent and determined that the interests of justice require that the respondent be allowed to apply for rescission. The application to make the award an order of court is postponed sine die, with time limits imposed for the respondent to file its rescission application.

Court disposition

Application to make CCMA award an order of court postponed sine die; respondent to file rescission application within 7 days.

Orders

  • The matter is postponed sine die.
  • The respondent is to file an application for rescission within 7 days with the CCMA and provide the applicant with proof thereof.
  • Should the outcome of the rescission application not be available by 31 January 2002, the application in terms of section 158(1)(c) will be set down for hearing by default.

02

Material facts

Parties

Thosamile Dayeni

Applicant

Container Link

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Urgent Application / Application to Make CCMA Award an Order of Court; Respondent Seeks Rescission

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant seeks to have the CCMA arbitration award made in his favour made an order of court under section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act. He contends that the award should be enforceable as the respondent did not participate in the arbitration proceedings.
Respondent
The respondent argues that it was not present at the arbitration hearing and therefore wishes to review or rescind the award. It asserts that it complied with the court's directions and filed its papers timeously, and seeks an opportunity to apply for rescission at the CCMA.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, section 144

    A party who was absent from arbitration proceedings may apply for rescission of the award under section 144 of the Labour Relations Act.

  2. 02

    Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, section 158(1)(c)

    An award obtained in the absence of a party should not be made an order of court until that party has had an opportunity to apply for rescission.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court held that since the respondent was not present at the arbitration hearing and the award was obtained in its absence, it would be prejudicial to make the award an order of court without affording the respondent an opportunity to apply for rescission. The only remedy available to the respondent is to approach the CCMA for rescission under section 144 of the Labour Relations Act. The court found no evidence of bad faith or abuse of process by the respondent and determined that the interests of justice require that the respondent be allowed to apply for rescission. The application to make the award an order of court is postponed sine die, with time limits imposed for the respondent to file its rescission application.

Obiter and limits

  • Employers often abuse processes by failing to appear at conciliation or arbitration hearings and only oppose awards when faced with execution, but no such conduct was established in this case.
  • If the respondent's application for rescission is refused, only then may the applicant proceed to make the award an order of court.

Court disposition

Application to make CCMA award an order of court postponed sine die; respondent to file rescission application within 7 days.

  • The matter is postponed sine die.
  • The respondent is to file an application for rescission within 7 days with the CCMA and provide the applicant with proof thereof.
  • Should the outcome of the rescission application not be available by 31 January 2002, the application in terms of section 158(1)(c) will be set down for hearing by default.

Source and reliance status

Labour Court

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Labour Court

Judgment

[2001] ZALC 207

Sneller Verbatim/JduP

IN

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: J814/01

2001-11-14

In the matter between

THOSAMILE DAYENI Applicant

and

CONTAINER LINK Respondent

________________

J

U D G M E N T

REVELAS, J:

This is an application in terms of section 158(1)(c) of the Act, in terms of which the applicant seeks to have an award made by a CCMA commissioner, made in his favour, an order of court.

On 26 June this year the matter came before me for the aforesaid application to be heard. On that day there was an appearance for the respondent, who indicated that it wanted to review the arbitration award.

The matter was then postponed sine die and time limits were set for the application to proceed by default in the absence of the respondent filing its papers timeously.

The respondent complied with the court order and filed its papers timeously. However, it appears that the arbitration award was obtained in the absence of the respondent. The respondent was not party thereto, in other words.

No party can review proceedings where it was not present due to the nature of a review, and the nature of the allegations that should be made in respect thereof.

The only remedy available to the respondent is to approach the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration to have the award set aside, or have the award rescinded in terms of section 144 of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 ("the Act").

I am faced with two dilemmas in this matter: On the one hand this matter has been postponed on numerous occasion, yet there is no indication of any mala fides on the part of the respondent. There may be a proper explanation why it was not present at the arbitration hearing. To deprive the respondent from applying for a rescission would be highly prejudicial to the respondent, as would be the position of anyone who obtained an order or an award against him or her, when they were not present due to factors, not their fault.

It may very well be that the application for rescission is refused, but only then the applicant would be in a position to proceed with his application to make the award an order of court.

It is also so that employers in this court often abuse processes in terms of which there is no appearance sometimes at conciliation meetings. Very often, if not frequently, this court is faced with cases where there was no appearance for the employer at the arbitration hearing, and only when the employer faces execution on the award which has been made an order of court, does it wish to oppose.

In this matter there has been no case made out that this was the attitude of the respondent. If it was, that should be dealt with at the CCMA when an application for rescission is brought. The only way I can come to the applicant's assistance in the circumstances is to place time limits on events to follow.

I make the following order:

The matter is postponed sine die.

2. The respondent is to file an application for rescission within 7 days hereof with the CCMA and provide the applicant with proof thereof.

3. Should the outcome of the rescission application not be available by 31 January 2002, the application in terms of section 158(1)(c) will be set down for hearing by default. ___ E. Revelas

It is also so that employers in this court often abuse processes in terms of which there is no appearance sometimes at conciliation meetings. Very often, if not frequently, this court is faced with cases where there was no appearance for the employer at the arbitration hearing, and only when the employer faces execution on the award which has been made an order of court, does it wish to oppose.

In this matter there has been no case made out that this was the attitude of the respondent. If it was, that should be dealt with at the CCMA when an application for rescission is brought. The only way I can come to the applicant's assistance in the circumstances is to place time limits on events to follow.

I make the following order:

The matter is postponed sine die.

2. The respondent is to file an application for rescission within 7 days hereof with the CCMA and provide the applicant with proof thereof.

3. Should the outcome of the rescission application not be available by 31 January 2002, the application in terms of section 158(1)(c) will be set down for hearing by default.

___

E. Revelas

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, section 144

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, section 158(1)(c)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.