Hortons v Raffee NO and Others (JR1220/09) [2010] ZALC 247 (26 October 2010)

Hortons v Raffee NO and Others (JR1220/09) [2010] ZALC 247 (26 October 2010)

The court found that the applicant failed to prove any gross irregularity in the commissioner's award of R10 785.00 to the third respondent. The evidence regarding the amount owed was not challenged during arbitration, and the commissioner was empowered under section 74(2) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act to determine such claims. The applicant's attempt to introduce a new ground of review was not valid and was abandoned. The review application was therefore dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the third respondent's reasonable disbursements.

Citation
[2010] ZALC 247
Parties
Applicant: HORTONS; Respondent: MOHAMED RAFFEE N.O.; Respondent: COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION; Respondent: JOAN-ANN OLIVIER
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 October 2010
Case Number
JR1220/09
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Francis
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Commissioner Powers, Unpaid Wages, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Constructive Dismissal
Labour Law Review of Arbitration Award Commissioner Powers Unpaid Wages Basic Conditions of Employment Act Constructive Dismissal

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

Parties

HORTONS

Applicant

MOHAMED RAFFEE N.O.

Respondent

COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION

Respondent

JOAN-ANN OLIVIER

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner acted grossly irregularly in awarding the third respondent R10 785.00 for unpaid savings and sheriff's returns.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner was empowered to determine the monetary claim under section 74(2) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to prove any gross irregularity in the commissioner's award of R10 785.00 to the third respondent. The evidence regarding the amount owed was not challenged during arbitration, and the commissioner was empowered under section 74(2) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act to determine such claims. The applicant's attempt to introduce a new ground of review was not valid and was abandoned. The review application was therefore dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the third respondent's reasonable disbursements.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the third respondent's reasonable disbursements.