Gallo Africa Limited v Seedat N.O (JR 846 /02) [2004] ZALC 8 (12 February 2004)

Gallo Africa Limited v Seedat N.O (JR 846 /02) [2004] ZALC 8 (12 February 2004)

The court found that although the arbitrator used terms such as 'conclusive' and 'most plausible', a close reading of the award revealed that he was aware of and applied the correct test, namely the balance of probabilities. The arbitrator considered the probabilities and the totality of the evidence, and his reasoning was rationally justifiable. The alleged irregularities were either inconsequential or unsupported by the record. Accordingly, there was no sufficient cause to correct or set aside the award.

Citation
[2004] ZALC 8
Parties
Applicant: Gallo Africa Limited; Respondent: Advocate Saleem Seedat N.O
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 February 2004
Case Number
JR 846 /02
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Semenya AJ
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Onus of Proof, Gross Irregularity, Misconduct in Arbitration
Labour Law Review of Arbitration Award Onus of Proof Gross Irregularity Misconduct in Arbitration

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

Gallo Africa Limited

Applicant

Advocate Saleem Seedat N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity in applying the incorrect test for onus of proof.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator failed to consider the totality of the evidence in finding the dismissal unfair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the arbitrator used terms such as 'conclusive' and 'most plausible', a close reading of the award revealed that he was aware of and applied the correct test, namely the balance of probabilities. The arbitrator considered the probabilities and the totality of the evidence, and his reasoning was rationally justifiable. The alleged irregularities were either inconsequential or unsupported by the record. Accordingly, there was no sufficient cause to correct or set aside the award.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.