Moyo v Commission for Conciliation, Meditation and Arbitration and Others (JR2778/05) [2016] ZALCJHB 96 (7 March 2016)

Moyo v Commission for Conciliation, Meditation and Arbitration and Others (JR2778/05) [2016] ZALCJHB 96 (7 March 2016)

The court found that Cele J was correct in rescinding his own order of 23 April 2013, as it had been erroneously granted without full disclosure of material facts and in the absence of the Third Respondent. The applicant had participated in the arbitration and review proceedings, thereby acquiescing in the prior orders. The October 2013 order was procedural, not final or appealable, and the applicant's rescission application was without basis. Allowing the application would undermine the finality of the arbitration award and constitute an abuse of process. The review application had already been dismissed, rendering the Second Respondent's award final and binding.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 96
Parties
Applicant: Thabani Moyo; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Kerry Driscoll N.O.; Respondent: Execujet; Respondent: Mariana Muller; Respondent: Cindy Robertson
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 March 2016
Case Number
JR2778/05
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Rescission of Prior Order
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Potgieter
Legal Topics
Employment Equity Act, Unfair Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Jurisdiction, Rescission of Order
Labour Law Employment Equity Act Unfair Discrimination Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Jurisdiction Rescission of Order

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

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Kerry Driscoll N.O.

Respondent

Execujet

Respondent

Mariana Muller

Respondent

Cindy Robertson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Rescission of Prior Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to rescission of the October 2013 order made by Cele J.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant acquiesced in the prior arbitration and review proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the October 2013 order was final and appealable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Cele J was correct in rescinding his own order of 23 April 2013, as it had been erroneously granted without full disclosure of material facts and in the absence of the Third Respondent. The applicant had participated in the arbitration and review proceedings, thereby acquiescing in the prior orders. The October 2013 order was procedural, not final or appealable, and the applicant's rescission application was without basis. Allowing the application would undermine the finality of the arbitration award and constitute an abuse of process. The review application had already been dismissed, rendering the Second Respondent's award final and binding.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.