Gull Foods (Pty) Ltd v Matlala NO and Others (J1869/00) [2003] ZALCJHB 21 (20 October 2003)

Gull Foods (Pty) Ltd v Matlala NO and Others (J1869/00) [2003] ZALCJHB 21 (20 October 2003)

The court found that the arbitrator failed to properly consider the evidence before him, including the uncontested blood test results and the admission of guilt at the disciplinary enquiry. The arbitrator's refusal to accept the blood test results without expert evidence was overly technical and unjustified, as the results were not disputed. Furthermore, the absence of a record of the arbitration proceedings, due to the CCMA's loss of the file, constituted an independent ground for setting aside the award. The court held that the applicant's right of review was paramount and that the matter should be reheard before a different commissioner.

Citation
[2003] ZALCJHB 21
Parties
Applicant: Gull Foods (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Matlala, L N N.O.; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Galela, B D
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 October 2003
Case Number
J1869/00
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; matter referred back to CCMA for rehearing before a different commissioner; no order as to costs.
Judges
A Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Admissibility of Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Admissibility of Evidence Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness

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

Parties

Gull Foods (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Matlala, L N N.O.

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

Galela, B D

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award made by the First Respondent was justifiable on the evidence before him.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a record of the arbitration proceedings is a ground for setting aside the award.
  3. 3 Whether expert evidence was necessary to prove intoxication in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator failed to properly consider the evidence before him, including the uncontested blood test results and the admission of guilt at the disciplinary enquiry. The arbitrator's refusal to accept the blood test results without expert evidence was overly technical and unjustified, as the results were not disputed. Furthermore, the absence of a record of the arbitration proceedings, due to the CCMA's loss of the file, constituted an independent ground for setting aside the award. The court held that the applicant's right of review was paramount and that the matter should be reheard before a different commissioner.

Court Disposition

Arbitration award reviewed and set aside; matter referred back to CCMA for rehearing before a different commissioner; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The award made by the First Respondent dated 27 March 2000 under case number GA 56865 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The matter is referred back to the CCMA for rehearing before a different Commissioner.