Maphosa v CCMA and Others (JR568/01) [2003] ZALCJHB 15 (7 February 2003)

Maphosa v CCMA and Others (JR568/01) [2003] ZALCJHB 15 (7 February 2003)

The court found that the arbitrator's reasoning in the award was vague and unintelligible, particularly regarding the letter on which the applicant placed great reliance. The absence of a clear transcript or mechanical recording of the proceedings further undermined the reliability of the award. As a result, the award was set aside and the dispute referred back to the CCMA to be heard by a different arbitrator, with the requirement that the proceedings be properly recorded.

Citation
[2003] ZALCJHB 15
Parties
Applicant: Sam Khumbulani Maphosa; Respondent: The CCMA; Respondent: Grant Sheen; Respondent: A.S.C. Federal Guarding
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 February 2003
Case Number
JR568/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The arbitration award is set aside and the dispute is referred back to the CCMA for a fresh hearing before a different arbitrator. No order as to costs.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Mechanical Recording of Proceedings, Section 145 Lra
Labour Law Review of Arbitration Award Mechanical Recording of Proceedings Section 145 Lra

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

Sam Khumbulani Maphosa

Applicant

The CCMA

Respondent

Grant Sheen

Respondent

A.S.C. Federal Guarding

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award of the CCMA should be reviewed and set aside under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings were properly recorded and whether a transcript exists.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's reasoning in the award was intelligible and sufficient.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator's reasoning in the award was vague and unintelligible, particularly regarding the letter on which the applicant placed great reliance. The absence of a clear transcript or mechanical recording of the proceedings further undermined the reliability of the award. As a result, the award was set aside and the dispute referred back to the CCMA to be heard by a different arbitrator, with the requirement that the proceedings be properly recorded.

Court Disposition

The arbitration award is set aside and the dispute is referred back to the CCMA for a fresh hearing before a different arbitrator. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The arbitration award is set aside.
  • The dispute is referred back to the CCMA to be heard by a different arbitrator.