Mkhonza and Another v Scottish Clothing Company and Others (JR1706/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 130 (5 April 2016)

Mkhonza and Another v Scottish Clothing Company and Others (JR1706/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 130 (5 April 2016)

The court found that while certain irregularities occurred during the arbitration, such as the exclusion of the applicants from each other's evidence and the handling of video footage, these were not so gross as to deprive the applicants of a fair opportunity to present their case or to materially distort the outcome. The arbitrator's interventions were largely legitimate attempts to clarify evidence and maintain focus. The applicants failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator's conduct amounted to bias or that any procedural irregularity had a distorting effect on the result. The applicants' own explanations for failing to follow procedures were inadequate, and the arbitrator's reasoning...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 130
Parties
Applicant: Pauline Mkhonza; Applicant: Edith Ledwaba; Respondent: Scottish Clothing Company; Respondent: Adv T T Serero (N.O.); Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 April 2016
Case Number
JR1706/13
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Review application dismissed.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Irregularity, Bias in Arbitration, Dismissal for Misconduct
Labour Law Review of Arbitration Award Procedural Irregularity Bias in Arbitration Dismissal for Misconduct

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pauline Mkhonza

Applicant

Edith Ledwaba

Applicant

Scottish Clothing Company

Respondent

Adv T T Serero (N.O.)

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed reviewable irregularities amounting to bias or procedural unfairness.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator failed to consider material evidence or misconstrued evidence in reaching his findings.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' dismissals for misconduct were substantively fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while certain irregularities occurred during the arbitration, such as the exclusion of the applicants from each other's evidence and the handling of video footage, these were not so gross as to deprive the applicants of a fair opportunity to present their case or to materially distort the outcome. The arbitrator's interventions were largely legitimate attempts to clarify evidence and maintain focus. The applicants failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator's conduct amounted to bias or that any procedural irregularity had a distorting effect on the result. The applicants' own explanations for failing to follow procedures were inadequate, and the arbitrator's reasoning...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.