Malaka and Others v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 279/12) [2013] ZALCJHB 208 (28 August 2013)

Malaka and Others v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 279/12) [2013] ZALCJHB 208 (28 August 2013)

The court held that the CCMA Commissioner was aware of the need to treat circumstantial evidence with caution and that his findings regarding the nature of the evidence were not unreasonable. The applicants failed to demonstrate that the award was one that no reasonable Commissioner could have made. The application was, in substance, an appeal rather than a proper review, and the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain appeals from CCMA awards. The review application was dismissed, and no costs order was made due to the applicants' self-representation.

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 208
Parties
Applicant: Malaka Jan; Applicant: Job Lentsoane; Applicant: Nelson Mokoatedi; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Willem Koekemoer; Respondent: Advanced Coal Technology (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 August 2013
Case Number
JR 279/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Review application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Edmonds
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Circumstantial Evidence, Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Circumstantial Evidence Review of Arbitration Award Procedural Fairness

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malaka Jan

Applicant

Job Lentsoane

Applicant

Nelson Mokoatedi

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Willem Koekemoer

Respondent

Advanced Coal Technology (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued by the CCMA Commissioner was reviewable on the grounds that no reasonable decision maker could have reached the same conclusion.
  2. 2 Whether the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the Commissioner was treated with sufficient caution.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the CCMA Commissioner was aware of the need to treat circumstantial evidence with caution and that his findings regarding the nature of the evidence were not unreasonable. The applicants failed to demonstrate that the award was one that no reasonable Commissioner could have made. The application was, in substance, an appeal rather than a proper review, and the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain appeals from CCMA awards. The review application was dismissed, and no costs order was made due to the applicants' self-representation.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.