Mkhize v Antrobus SC NO and Another (JR 1342/12) [2013] ZALCJHB 33; (2013) 34 ILJ 2893 (LC) (20 March 2013)

Mkhize v Antrobus SC NO and Another (JR 1342/12) [2013] ZALCJHB 33; (2013) 34 ILJ 2893 (LC) (20 March 2013)

The court found that the applicant's review application was primarily based on grounds that are more appropriate for appeal than review, with limited procedural challenges that have scant prospects of success. Under the Arbitration Act, the grounds for review are strictly defined and do not include the broader standard of unreasonableness applicable under the Labour Relations Act. Given the weak merits of the review and the likelihood of significant costs, the court held it was fair to require the applicant to provide security for costs to protect the respondent from financial loss should the review prove meritless. The quantum of security is to be determined by agreement or, failing...

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 33
Parties
Applicant: Thokozani Raymond Mkhize; Respondent: Mark Antrobus S.C. (N.O.); Respondent: Bonitas Marketing (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 March 2013
Case Number
JR 1342/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs in Review Proceedings
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness, Labour Relations Act, Arbitration Act
Labour Law Civil Procedure Security for Costs Review of Arbitration Award Procedural Fairness Labour Relations Act Arbitration Act

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thokozani Raymond Mkhize

Applicant

Mark Antrobus S.C. (N.O.)

Respondent

Bonitas Marketing (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs in Review Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be ordered to provide security for costs in the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the grounds raised by the applicant constitute genuine review grounds or are merely grounds of appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's procedural challenges have prospects of success under the Arbitration Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's review application was primarily based on grounds that are more appropriate for appeal than review, with limited procedural challenges that have scant prospects of success. Under the Arbitration Act, the grounds for review are strictly defined and do not include the broader standard of unreasonableness applicable under the Labour Relations Act. Given the weak merits of the review and the likelihood of significant costs, the court held it was fair to require the applicant to provide security for costs to protect the respondent from financial loss should the review prove meritless. The quantum of security is to be determined by agreement or, failing...

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted.

Orders

  • The applicant is ordered to establish security for the second respondent's costs in an amount to be determined by agreement between the applicant and the second respondent, or failing agreement within 15 days, by the Registrar of the Labour Court.
  • Costs of this application shall be costs in the cause.