Maye Serobe (Pty) Ltd v LEWUSA obo Members and Others (J2377/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 116 (9 April 2015)

Maye Serobe (Pty) Ltd v LEWUSA obo Members and Others (J2377/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 116 (9 April 2015)

The court found that Ramaphakela was authorised to represent the applicant and there was no evidence that the commissioner exerted duress, undue influence, or misrepresented the applicant's obligations. The applicant's failure to properly instruct or select a capable representative does not absolve it from liability...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 116
Parties
Applicant: Maye Serobe (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: LEWUSA obo Members; Respondent: Commissioner S. Makhubela; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 April 2015
Case Number
J2377/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Ralefatane
Legal Topics
Agency and Mandate, Settlement Agreement, Conciliation Proceedings, Ostensible Authority, Duress and Undue Influence
Labour Law Civil Procedure Agency and Mandate Settlement Agreement Conciliation Proceedings Ostensible Authority Duress and Undue Influence

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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maye Serobe (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

LEWUSA obo Members

Respondent

Commissioner S. Makhubela

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agent (Ramaphakela) had the mandate to conclude the settlement agreement on behalf of the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner exerted undue influence, duress, or misrepresented the applicant's obligations during conciliation.
  3. 3 Whether the settlement agreement is void due to lack of mandate or duress.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Ramaphakela was authorised to represent the applicant and there was no evidence that the commissioner exerted duress, undue influence, or misrepresented the applicant's obligations. The applicant's failure to properly instruct or select a capable representative does not absolve it from liability for the agent's actions. The commissioner is not required to verify the mandate of representatives during conciliation, and the settlement agreement, not made an award, is governed by ordinary contractual principles. The applicant's allegations of lack of jurisdiction and procedural irregularity were not substantiated, and the applicant failed to prove any grounds for setting...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the Settlement Agreement is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay costs.