Mkhwanazi v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1594/01) [2002] ZALCJHB 1 (5 February 2002)

Mkhwanazi v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1594/01) [2002] ZALCJHB 1 (5 February 2002)

The court found that although the CCMA did not have jurisdiction to conciliate the dispute, this fact alone does not render the settlement agreement invalid. However, the undisputed evidence that the applicant felt manipulated and doubted the objectivity of the Commissioner justified setting aside the agreement. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] ZALCJHB 1
Parties
Applicant: M Mkhwanazi; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Abe Mathebula; Respondent: Josiah Mathebula
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Case Number
JR1594/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The settlement agreement dated 29 August 2000 is set aside.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Ccma, Settlement Agreement, Operational Requirements, Review of Arbitration
Labour Law Jurisdiction of Ccma Settlement Agreement Operational Requirements Review of Arbitration

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M Mkhwanazi

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Abe Mathebula

Respondent

Josiah Mathebula

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to conciliate the dispute arising from alleged operational requirements.
  2. 2 Whether the settlement agreement reached under the CCMA's auspices should be set aside due to lack of jurisdiction.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was manipulated or unduly influenced to sign the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the CCMA did not have jurisdiction to conciliate the dispute, this fact alone does not render the settlement agreement invalid. However, the undisputed evidence that the applicant felt manipulated and doubted the objectivity of the Commissioner justified setting aside the agreement. The respondents did not contest these claims, and the court concluded that the agreement reached on 29 August 2000 should be set aside.

Court Disposition

The settlement agreement dated 29 August 2000 is set aside.

Orders

  • The agreement dated 29 August 2000 reached between the parties is set aside.