LA Crushers (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2275/11; J1960/17) [2020] ZALCJHB 40 (14 February 2020)

LA Crushers (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2275/11; J1960/17) [2020] ZALCJHB 40 (14 February 2020)

The Court found that the applicant's withdrawal of the review application was bona fide and based on the legal position prevailing at the time, which was subsequently changed by the Constitutional Court. The review application was unopposed, and the third respondent did not enforce the arbitration award for three years. The right to be heard, protected by the Constitution, supports reinstatement of the review application, especially since it was never decided on its merits. There was no prejudice to the third respondent, and no impediment to reinstatement was found.

Citation
[2020] ZALCJHB 40
Parties
Applicant: LA Crushers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Josias Maake N.O; Respondent: NUM obo Molimi Richards and 3 Others
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 February 2020
Case Number
JR2275/11; J1960/17
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Reinstate Withdrawn Review
Outcome
Application for reinstatement of the review is granted.
Judges
Z Lallie
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Award Prescription, Review of Arbitration Award, Condonation of Late Filing
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Award Prescription Review of Arbitration Award Condonation of Late Filing

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LA Crushers (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Josias Maake N.O

Respondent

NUM obo Molimi Richards and 3 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Reinstate Withdrawn Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the review application withdrawn by the applicant should be reinstated.
  2. 2 Whether the late answering affidavit by the third respondent should be considered.
  3. 3 Whether the change in legal position regarding prescription of arbitration awards justifies reinstatement.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant's withdrawal of the review application was bona fide and based on the legal position prevailing at the time, which was subsequently changed by the Constitutional Court. The review application was unopposed, and the third respondent did not enforce the arbitration award for three years. The right to be heard, protected by the Constitution, supports reinstatement of the review application, especially since it was never decided on its merits. There was no prejudice to the third respondent, and no impediment to reinstatement was found.

Court Disposition

Application for reinstatement of the review is granted.

Orders

  • The application for review under case number JR 2275/11 is reinstated.