Moyo v CCMA and Others (JR1099/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 111 (26 March 2015)

Moyo v CCMA and Others (JR1099/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 111 (26 March 2015)

The Applicant's refusal to attempt reconstruction of the missing portion of the arbitration record was unjustified. The record, as provided, included a detailed account of the evidence led, and the Applicant failed to substantiate claims that the notes were fabricated or that the award did not accurately reflect his evidence. The review application was defective due to lack of submissions referencing the record and absence of sustainable grounds for review. The Third Respondent provided a sufficient explanation for the late filing of its answering affidavit, and condonation was granted. There was no basis to remit the matter for a new hearing, and the application for review was dismissed.

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 111
Parties
Applicant: Thabani Moyo; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Commissioner Kerry Driscoll; Respondent: Execujet (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Marianna Muller; Respondent: Cindy Robertson
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 March 2015
Case Number
JR1099/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation
Outcome
The review application is dismissed. The late filing of the Third Respondent's answering affidavit is condoned. No order as to costs.
Judges
Whitcher
Legal Topics
Condonation of Late Filing, Review of Arbitration Award, Reconstruction of Record, Employment Equity Act, Unfair Discrimination
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation of Late Filing Review of Arbitration Award Reconstruction of Record Employment Equity Act Unfair Discrimination

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thabani Moyo

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Commissioner Kerry Driscoll

Respondent

Execujet (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Marianna Muller

Respondent

Cindy Robertson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the late filing of the Third Respondent's answering affidavit should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant's refusal to reconstruct the missing portion of the arbitration record justifies remitting the matter for a new hearing.
  3. 3 Whether the review application is defective due to lack of substantiation and absence of a complete record.

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant's refusal to attempt reconstruction of the missing portion of the arbitration record was unjustified. The record, as provided, included a detailed account of the evidence led, and the Applicant failed to substantiate claims that the notes were fabricated or that the award did not accurately reflect his evidence. The review application was defective due to lack of submissions referencing the record and absence of sustainable grounds for review. The Third Respondent provided a sufficient explanation for the late filing of its answering affidavit, and condonation was granted. There was no basis to remit the matter for a new hearing, and the application for review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

The review application is dismissed. The late filing of the Third Respondent's answering affidavit is condoned. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The late filing of the Third Respondent's answering affidavit is condoned.
  • The application to review the arbitration award granted against the Applicant by the Second Respondent on 3 April 2012 under CCMA case number GAJB171/05 is dismissed.