Mohlala v MEIBC and Others (JR243/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 161 (24 April 2018)

Mohlala v MEIBC and Others (JR243/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 161 (24 April 2018)

The court found that the applicant's grounds for review were based primarily on evidence not presented at the arbitration hearing, which cannot be considered in a review. The arbitrator's findings, based on the evidence before him, were not unreasonable. The inference that the applicant refused to leave the premises was plausible, and the arbitrator's assessment of the probabilities was rational. The applicant's non-compliance with the practice manual was condoned due to his indigent circumstances, but the review application was dismissed as the award was not unreasonable.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 161
Parties
Applicant: Mathome Foster Mohlala; Respondent: MEIBC; Respondent: L C Shandu (N.O.); Respondent: Raytoko Electrical & Mechanical CC
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 April 2018
Case Number
JR243/16
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Review application dismissed; condonation granted for late filing; no order as to costs.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Misconduct, Review of Arbitration Award, Condonation of Late Filing, Substantive Fairness, Occupational Health and Safety
Labour Law Civil Procedure Dismissal for Misconduct Review of Arbitration Award Condonation of Late Filing Substantive Fairness Occupational Health and Safety

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathome Foster Mohlala

Applicant

MEIBC

Respondent

L C Shandu (N.O.)

Respondent

Raytoko Electrical & Mechanical CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's award finding the dismissal substantively fair was unreasonable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's late filing of the transcript and non-compliance with the Labour Court Practice Manual should be condoned.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator failed to consider relevant evidence regarding workplace safety and alleged double standards.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's grounds for review were based primarily on evidence not presented at the arbitration hearing, which cannot be considered in a review. The arbitrator's findings, based on the evidence before him, were not unreasonable. The inference that the applicant refused to leave the premises was plausible, and the arbitrator's assessment of the probabilities was rational. The applicant's non-compliance with the practice manual was condoned due to his indigent circumstances, but the review application was dismissed as the award was not unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed; condonation granted for late filing; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicant’s late filing of the transcript of the arbitration proceedings and non-compliance with the Labour Court practice manual is condoned.
  • The review application is dismissed.