Mogano v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2585/10) [2011] ZALCJHB 62 (20 July 2011)

Mogano v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2585/10) [2011] ZALCJHB 62 (20 July 2011)

The court found that the applicant's founding affidavit was incomplete, specifically missing page 6, which prejudiced the respondents and prevented the court from properly determining the matter. The applicant failed to substantiate how she was forced to enter into the settlement agreement, and was not specific about the grounds relied upon. Furthermore, the applicant did not seek to set aside the certificate of settlement and requested remittal to the same commissioner alleged to have pressured her. The court held that the applicant did not provide sufficient information or clarity to warrant the relief sought, and dismissed the application.

Citation
[2011] ZALCJHB 62
Parties
Applicant: Ramokone Johanna Mogano; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Thenjiwe Nhliziyo N.O.; Respondent: Laurice Preston
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 July 2011
Case Number
JR2585/10
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Moletsane AJ
Legal Topics
Review of Settlement Agreement, Unfair Dismissal, Conciliation Procedure, Certificate of Settlement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Settlement Agreement Unfair Dismissal Conciliation Procedure Certificate of Settlement

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramokone Johanna Mogano

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Thenjiwe Nhliziyo N.O.

Respondent

Laurice Preston

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement signed at the CCMA should be set aside as invalid.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was unfairly dismissed.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant substantiated her claim of being forced to sign the settlement agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's founding affidavit was incomplete, specifically missing page 6, which prejudiced the respondents and prevented the court from properly determining the matter. The applicant failed to substantiate how she was forced to enter into the settlement agreement, and was not specific about the grounds relied upon. Furthermore, the applicant did not seek to set aside the certificate of settlement and requested remittal to the same commissioner alleged to have pressured her. The court held that the applicant did not provide sufficient information or clarity to warrant the relief sought, and dismissed the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant’s application is dismissed.
  • There shall be no order as to costs.