Miya v Kalaparsad t/a Nikiels Coach Tours and Others (D426/08) [2009] ZALCD 21 (9 February 2009)

Miya v Kalaparsad t/a Nikiels Coach Tours and Others (D426/08) [2009] ZALCD 21 (9 February 2009)

The court found no evidence in the arbitration transcript to support the applicant's contention that the commissioner interfered unduly with his cross-examination of the employer. The arbitrator maintained control over the proceedings in accordance with her terms of reference, but did not prevent the applicant from...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] ZALCD 21
Parties
Applicant: Buhle Zamokwakhe Miya; Respondent: A Kalaparsad t/a Nikiels Coach Tours; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Hilda Grobler
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Case Number
D426/08
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Judges
Pillay D
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness, Cross Examination Rights
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Procedural Fairness Cross Examination Rights

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Buhle Zamokwakhe Miya

Applicant

A Kalaparsad t/a Nikiels Coach Tours

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Hilda Grobler

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner denied the applicant a fair opportunity to cross-examine the employer.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's interventions in the proceedings amounted to procedural unfairness.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no evidence in the arbitration transcript to support the applicant's contention that the commissioner interfered unduly with his cross-examination of the employer. The arbitrator maintained control over the proceedings in accordance with her terms of reference, but did not prevent the applicant from exercising his rights. Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish that any alleged restriction on cross-examination could have revealed dishonesty or materially affected the outcome. The application for review was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.