Kunene v Sithole NO and Others (JR879/18) [2021] ZALCJHB 196 (27 July 2021)

Kunene v Sithole NO and Others (JR879/18) [2021] ZALCJHB 196 (27 July 2021)

The applicant failed to substantiate any of the grounds for review with factual averments or legal argument. The arbitrator correctly adjudicated the dispute as defined in the pre-arbitration minute, and there was no evidence of any defect or irregularity that would render the award reviewable under section 145(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act. The review application was drafted and pursued in a manner that demonstrated a material departure from the responsibilities of the applicant's legal representatives, warranting a provisional order for costs de bonis propriis against them. The application for review was dismissed, and costs were provisionally awarded against the applicant's...

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 196
Parties
Applicant: Johannes Mafika Kunene; Respondent: Sibongiseni Sithole N.O; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Eskom Holdings SOC Limited
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 July 2021
Case Number
JR879/18
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for review dismissed. Costs provisionally awarded against applicant's attorneys de bonis propriis.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Promotion and Benefits, Review of Arbitration Award, Costs De Bonis Propriis
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Promotion and Benefits Review of Arbitration Award Costs De Bonis Propriis

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Mafika Kunene

Applicant

Sibongiseni Sithole N.O

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed a reviewable irregularity in dismissing the applicant's unfair labour practice claim relating to promotion and benefits.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award reflected the true dispute between the parties as defined in the pre-arbitration minute.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's legal representatives should be ordered to pay costs de bonis propriis due to the manner in which the review application was conducted.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to substantiate any of the grounds for review with factual averments or legal argument. The arbitrator correctly adjudicated the dispute as defined in the pre-arbitration minute, and there was no evidence of any defect or irregularity that would render the award reviewable under section 145(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act. The review application was drafted and pursued in a manner that demonstrated a material departure from the responsibilities of the applicant's legal representatives, warranting a provisional order for costs de bonis propriis against them. The application for review was dismissed, and costs were provisionally awarded against the applicant's...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed. Costs provisionally awarded against applicant's attorneys de bonis propriis.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The Third Respondent's costs are to be paid de bonis propriis by Creighton & Associates Inc Attorneys, on the scale as between attorney and client.