Jula v Khoza NO and Others (JR1162/05) [2009] ZALC 29 (16 March 2009)

Jula v Khoza NO and Others (JR1162/05) [2009] ZALC 29 (16 March 2009)

The applicant's review application was dismissed due to excessive and unexplained delay in prosecuting the matter, which was not satisfactorily explained by financial or health difficulties. Even if the delay were condoned, the review would fail on the merits, as the Commissioner’s award was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The applicant did not prove that she was not guilty of the misconduct, nor did she establish that the Commissioner committed misconduct or gross irregularity. The facts did not support her version that she was a victim of a syndicate or that she was the first to report the fraud. The Commissioner was correct in rejecting the applicant’s evidence and in finding...

Citation
[2009] ZALC 29
Parties
Applicant: Dona Jula; Respondent: Commissioner Khoza S, N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: South African Post Office Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 March 2009
Case Number
JR1162/05
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review Application
Outcome
The applicant's review application is dismissed with costs.
Judges
molahlehi
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Unreasonable Delay, Condonation, Misconduct, Fraud, Balance of Probabilities
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Unreasonable Delay Condonation Misconduct Fraud Balance of Probabilities

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dona Jula

Applicant

Commissioner Khoza S, N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

South African Post Office Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's delay in prosecuting the review application should result in dismissal of the claim.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award issued by the Commissioner was unreasonable or tainted by misconduct or gross irregularity.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant proved that she was not guilty of the misconduct (fraudulent withdrawals) for which she was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's review application was dismissed due to excessive and unexplained delay in prosecuting the matter, which was not satisfactorily explained by financial or health difficulties. Even if the delay were condoned, the review would fail on the merits, as the Commissioner’s award was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The applicant did not prove that she was not guilty of the misconduct, nor did she establish that the Commissioner committed misconduct or gross irregularity. The facts did not support her version that she was a victim of a syndicate or that she was the first to report the fraud. The Commissioner was correct in rejecting the applicant’s evidence and in finding...

Court Disposition

The applicant's review application is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the arbitration award issued by the first respondent under case number GA18292-04 dated 31 March 2005 is dismissed with costs.