Mocheke v GPSSBC and Others (JR1916/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 391 (29 November 2018)

Mocheke v GPSSBC and Others (JR1916/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 391 (29 November 2018)

The court found that the arbitrator's decision was consistent with the evidence presented, particularly the clear and convincing testimony of the farm owner regarding the cash received by the applicant. The applicant's version was improbable and less convincing. The arbitrator did not misdirect himself nor demonstrate bias. The award fell within the bounds of reasonableness and was therefore not reviewable in law.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 391
Parties
Applicant: R P Mocheke; Respondent: GPSSBC; Respondent: Moloko Ephraim Phooko N.O.; Respondent: Minister: Department of Home Affairs
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2018
Case Number
JR1916/17
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Judges
GN Moshoana
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Reasonableness of Award, Bias, Failure to Apply Mind
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Reasonableness of Award Bias Failure to Apply Mind

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R P Mocheke

Applicant

GPSSBC

Respondent

Moloko Ephraim Phooko N.O.

Respondent

Minister: Department of Home Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award dismissing the applicant's unfair dismissal claim is reviewable in law.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's decision was one that a reasonable arbitrator could reach.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator misdirected himself or demonstrated bias.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator's decision was consistent with the evidence presented, particularly the clear and convincing testimony of the farm owner regarding the cash received by the applicant. The applicant's version was improbable and less convincing. The arbitrator did not misdirect himself nor demonstrate bias. The award fell within the bounds of reasonableness and was therefore not reviewable in law.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed with no order as to costs.