Malebo v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 1508/2009) [2010] ZALC 97 (15 April 2010)

Malebo v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 1508/2009) [2010] ZALC 97 (15 April 2010)

The court held that the settlement agreement concluded at the CCMA was not made an arbitration award and thus could not be reviewed under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act. The applicant failed to establish that his consent to the agreement was uninformed or improperly induced. The evidence showed that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] ZALC 97
Parties
Applicant: Lebogang Malebo; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner D Dibakwane; Respondent: Woolworths (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 April 2010
Case Number
JR 1508/2009
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreement, Review of Ccma Proceedings, Unfair Dismissal, Consent in Settlement, Section 145 Lra, Section 158 Lra
Labour Law Civil Procedure Settlement Agreement Review of Ccma Proceedings Unfair Dismissal Consent in Settlement Section 145 Lra Section 158 Lra

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lebogang Malebo

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner D Dibakwane

Respondent

Woolworths (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement concluded at the CCMA can be reviewed and set aside under section 145 or section 158(1)(g) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's consent to the settlement agreement was informed and voluntary.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the commissioner during conciliation proceedings invalidated the settlement agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the settlement agreement concluded at the CCMA was not made an arbitration award and thus could not be reviewed under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act. The applicant failed to establish that his consent to the agreement was uninformed or improperly induced. The evidence showed that the applicant was articulate, had managerial experience, and did not raise any concerns about the agreement in his subsequent correspondence. The respondent's version of events was accepted, and there was no factual basis to set aside the agreement under section 158(1)(g) either. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the settlement agreement is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the third respondent's costs.