Magnum Security (Pty) Ltd v Thobejane and Others (JR170/01) [2002] ZALCJHB 26 (11 December 2002)

Magnum Security (Pty) Ltd v Thobejane and Others (JR170/01) [2002] ZALCJHB 26 (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 while disbelieving a witness who did testify under oath. This conduct amounted to legal misconduct and a defect as contemplated in section 145 of the Labour Relations Act. As a result, the arbitration award was set aside and the dispute was referred back to the CCMA for arbitration by a different commissioner.

Citation
[2002] ZALCJHB 26
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 Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 December 2002
Case Number
JR170/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The arbitration award was set aside and the dispute 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 Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Review Gross Irregularity Legal Misconduct

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 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 arbitrator committed a gross irregularity by accepting evidence from a witness who did not testify under oath while disbelieving a witness who did testify under oath.
  2. 2 Whether such conduct amounts to a defect contemplated in section 145 of the Labour Relations Act justifying the setting aside of the arbitration award.

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 while disbelieving a witness who did testify under oath. This conduct amounted to legal misconduct and a defect as contemplated in section 145 of the Labour Relations Act. As a result, the arbitration award was set aside and the dispute was referred back to the CCMA for arbitration by a different commissioner.

Court Disposition

The arbitration award was set aside and the dispute 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.