Fedcraw v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1158/07) [2009] ZALC 185 (19 June 2009)

Fedcraw v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1158/07) [2009] ZALC 185 (19 June 2009)

The court found that the commissioner had committed a reviewable irregularity by treating the rescission application as unopposed, despite clear evidence of opposition. 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. The matter was referred back to the CCMA to be considered afresh as an opposed application by another commissioner.

Citation
[2009] ZALC 185
Parties
Applicant: Fedcraw; Applicant: Joshua Ketlele; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Enrico Honnorat; Respondent: Wenpro Marketing Agents
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 June 2009
Case Number
JR1158/07
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The rescission ruling made by the commissioner on 28 March 2007 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 Arbitration Award, Gross Irregularity, Default Award, Opposed Application
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Arbitration 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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner committed a reviewable irregularity by treating the rescission application as unopposed.
  2. 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 of opposition. 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. The matter was referred back to the CCMA to be considered afresh as an opposed application by another commissioner.

Court Disposition

The rescission ruling made by the commissioner on 28 March 2007 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.