Gauteng Coaches (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR929/02) [2007] ZALC 140 (16 August 2007)

Gauteng Coaches (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR929/02) [2007] ZALC 140 (16 August 2007)

The Commissioner exceeded her powers by deciding on substantive fairness when only procedural fairness was challenged by the third respondent. The applicant was denied a fair hearing, as it was not afforded the opportunity to address substantive issues, specifically the third respondent's involvement in the sale of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] ZALC 140
Parties
Applicant: Gauteng Coaches (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Ralefatane N.O.; Respondent: Ndambi Titus Khumalo
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 August 2007
Case Number
JR929/02
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The review application succeeds. The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside. The dispute is referred to the CCMA for arbitration de novo before a different Commissioner. No order as to costs.
Judges
Mayet A J
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Commissioner Powers, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Polygraph Testing
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Commissioner Powers Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Polygraph Testing

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gauteng Coaches (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Ralefatane N.O.

Respondent

Ndambi Titus Khumalo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner exceeded her powers by deciding on substantive fairness when only procedural fairness was challenged.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied a fair hearing by not being given an opportunity to address substantive issues.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award should be reviewed and set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner exceeded her powers by deciding on substantive fairness when only procedural fairness was challenged by the third respondent. The applicant was denied a fair hearing, as it was not afforded the opportunity to address substantive issues, specifically the third respondent's involvement in the sale of fraudulent tickets. The Commissioner committed an irregularity that prevented a fair hearing, and the award cannot stand. The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside, and the dispute is referred for arbitration de novo before a different Commissioner.

Court Disposition

The review application succeeds. The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside. The dispute is referred to the CCMA for arbitration de novo before a different Commissioner. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The ruling issued under Case No. GA122097 and dated 16 November 2001 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The dispute is referred to the CCMA for arbitration de novo before a Commissioner other than the second respondent.