FEDCRAW and Another v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1158/07) [2009] ZALCJHB 15 (19 June 2009)
The court found that the commissioner had committed a reviewable irregularity by treating the rescission application as unopposed, despite clear evidence that the applicants had filed opposing papers. The absence of any affidavit from the commissioner explaining his conduct left the court with no alternative but to accept the applicants' version. As a result, the rescission ruling was reviewed and set aside, and the matter was referred back to the CCMA to be considered afresh by another commissioner as an opposed application.
- Citation
- [2009] ZALCJHB 15
- Parties
- Applicant: FEDCRAW; Applicant: Joshua Ketlele; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Enrico Honnorat; Respondent: Wenpro Marketing Agents
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 19 June 2009
- Case Number
- JR1158/07
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Application to Review and Set Aside a Rescission Ruling by the CCMA Commissioner.
- Outcome
- The rescission ruling made by the commissioner is reviewed and set aside. The matter is referred back to the CCMA for reconsideration by another commissioner as an opposed application.
- Judges
- Van Niekerk
- Legal Topics
- Rescission of Award, Gross Irregularity, Default Award, Opposed Application
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
FEDCRAW
Applicant
Joshua Ketlele
Applicant
Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Respondent
Commissioner Enrico Honnorat
Respondent
Wenpro Marketing Agents
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Review and Set Aside a Rescission Ruling by the CCMA Commissioner.
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the commissioner committed a reviewable irregularity by treating the rescission application as unopposed.
- 2 Whether the rescission ruling should be set aside due to procedural irregularity.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the commissioner had committed a reviewable irregularity by treating the rescission application as unopposed, despite clear evidence that the applicants had filed opposing papers. The absence of any affidavit from the commissioner explaining his conduct left the court with no alternative but to accept the applicants' version. As a result, the rescission ruling was reviewed and set aside, and the matter was referred back to the CCMA to be considered afresh by another commissioner as an opposed application.
Court Disposition
The rescission ruling made by the commissioner is reviewed and set aside. The matter is referred back to the CCMA for reconsideration by another commissioner as an opposed application.
Orders
- The ruling made by the second respondent on 28 March 2007 is reviewed and set aside.
- The matter is referred back to the CCMA to be considered afresh as an opposed application by another commissioner.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment