Mjayeli Security (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D1318/17) [2020] ZALCD 13 (3 September 2020)

Mjayeli Security (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D1318/17) [2020] ZALCD 13 (3 September 2020)

The applicant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for a review application, specifically by not filing the record of proceedings and not providing written submissions or an explanation for its default. The court found that, in the absence of these documents and explanations, there was no basis to consider whether the rescission ruling was reviewable. The applicant's reliance on the merits of the default award was irrelevant to the review of the rescission ruling. The court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the third respondent's costs.

Citation
[2020] ZALCD 13
Parties
Applicant: Mjayeli Security (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Caressa Venkatiah; Respondent: Ntombi Ntuli
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 September 2020
Case Number
D1318/17
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
D H Gush
Legal Topics
Rescission of Award, Review of Ccma Ruling, Default Award, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Award Review of Ccma Ruling Default Award Costs Order

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mjayeli Security (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Caressa Venkatiah

Respondent

Ntombi Ntuli

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant complied with the procedural requirements for a review of a rescission ruling.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to file the record and written submissions justifies dismissal of the review application.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided sufficient explanation for its default in the arbitration proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for a review application, specifically by not filing the record of proceedings and not providing written submissions or an explanation for its default. The court found that, in the absence of these documents and explanations, there was no basis to consider whether the rescission ruling was reviewable. The applicant's reliance on the merits of the default award was irrelevant to the review of the rescission ruling. The court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the third respondent's costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The applicant's application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the third respondent's costs.