Hortons v Raffee NO and Others (JR1220/09) [2010] ZALCJHB 27 (26 October 2010)

Hortons v Raffee NO and Others (JR1220/09) [2010] ZALCJHB 27 (26 October 2010)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any gross irregularity in the commissioner’s award of R10 785.00 to the third respondent. The evidence of the amount owed was not challenged during cross-examination and was supported by documentary proof. The commissioner acted within his powers under section 74(2) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act to determine the claim. The applicant’s attempt to introduce a new ground of review was not pursued and was not valid. Accordingly, the review application was dismissed.

Citation
[2010] ZALCJHB 27
Parties
Applicant: HORTONS; Respondent: MOHAMED RAFFEE N.O.; Respondent: COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION; Respondent: JOAN-ANN OLIVIER
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 October 2010
Case Number
JR1220/09
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Francis J
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Constructive Dismissal, Unpaid Commission, Basic Conditions of Employment Act
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Constructive Dismissal Unpaid Commission Basic Conditions of Employment Act

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 entitled to determine the claim for monies owed under section 74(2) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any gross irregularity in the commissioner’s award of R10 785.00 to the third respondent. The evidence of the amount owed was not challenged during cross-examination and was supported by documentary proof. The commissioner acted within his powers under section 74(2) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act to determine the claim. The applicant’s attempt to introduce a new ground of review was not pursued and was not valid. Accordingly, the review application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

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