Mooki v CCMA and Others (JR772/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 173 (3 February 2017)

Mooki v CCMA and Others (JR772/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 173 (3 February 2017)

The applicant failed to establish that the commissioner committed a reviewable irregularity or that the arbitration award was unreasonable. The grounds for review were not properly pleaded and amounted to mere assertions that the commissioner was wrong, which is insufficient for review. The commissioner considered all relevant evidence, including the nature of the charges, the delay in bringing charges, and the procedural fairness of the disciplinary hearing. The finding that the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair was one that a reasonable decision maker could reach. The application for review was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 173
Parties
Applicant: Osesile Vincent Mooki; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Commissioner Lazarus Matlala; Respondent: Royal Bafokeng Administration
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 February 2017
Case Number
JR 772/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Unfair Dismissal, Reasonableness Test, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Unfair Dismissal Reasonableness Test Procedural Fairness

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Osesile Vincent Mooki

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Commissioner Lazarus Matlala

Respondent

Royal Bafokeng Administration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner committed a reviewable irregularity in the arbitration proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award was unreasonable and should be set aside.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish that the commissioner committed a reviewable irregularity or that the arbitration award was unreasonable. The grounds for review were not properly pleaded and amounted to mere assertions that the commissioner was wrong, which is insufficient for review. The commissioner considered all relevant evidence, including the nature of the charges, the delay in bringing charges, and the procedural fairness of the disciplinary hearing. The finding that the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair was one that a reasonable decision maker could reach. The application for review was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.