Magnum Security (Pty) Limited v Thobejane and Others (JR170/01) [2002] ZALC 199 (11 December 2002)

Magnum Security (Pty) Limited v Thobejane and Others (JR170/01) [2002] ZALC 199 (11 December 2002)

The court found that the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity by accepting the evidence of a witness who did not testify under oath and giving it greater weight than the evidence of a witness who did testify under oath. This conduct amounted to legal misconduct and a defect as contemplated by section 145 of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] ZALC 199
Parties
Applicant: Magnum Security (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Petrus Thobejane; Respondent: M J Ralefatane N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 December 2002
Case Number
JR170/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The arbitration award is set aside and the dispute is referred back to the CCMA for arbitration by a different commissioner.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Review, Gross Irregularity, Legal Misconduct
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Review Gross Irregularity Legal Misconduct

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Magnum Security (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Petrus Thobejane

Respondent

M J Ralefatane N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award should be set aside due to irregularities in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity by accepting unsworn evidence and giving it greater weight than sworn testimony.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity by accepting the evidence of a witness who did not testify under oath and giving it greater weight than the evidence of a witness who did testify under oath. This conduct amounted to legal misconduct and a defect as contemplated by section 145 of the Labour Relations Act. On this ground alone, the arbitration award was set aside and the dispute was referred back to the CCMA to be arbitrated by a different commissioner.

Court Disposition

The arbitration award is set aside and the dispute is referred back to the CCMA for arbitration by a different commissioner.

Orders

  • The award of the second respondent is set aside.
  • The dispute is referred back to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration for arbitration.