Mpumalanga Development Corporation v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J4469/99) [2002] ZALC 169 (5 September 2002)

Mpumalanga Development Corporation v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J4469/99) [2002] ZALC 169 (5 September 2002)

The court found that the arbitrator's award was rationally and reasonably connected to the evidence presented. The third respondent was entitled to two months' remuneration as agreed, and the applicant failed to provide any facts justifying a review of the award. The application for postponement was refused due to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] ZALC 169
Parties
Applicant: Mpumalanga Development Corporation; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: B.H. Mbha; Respondent: Leon Smalman
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 September 2002
Case Number
J4469/99
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs. Arbitrator's award confirmed and made an order of court.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Remuneration Dispute, Section 145 Lra, Section 158 1 C Lra
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Remuneration Dispute Section 145 Lra Section 158 1 C Lra

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mpumalanga Development Corporation

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

B.H. Mbha

Respondent

Leon Smalman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's award was rationally and reasonably connected to the evidence presented.
  2. 2 Whether the third respondent was entitled to two months' remuneration following termination of employment.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's application for postponement should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator's award was rationally and reasonably connected to the evidence presented. The third respondent was entitled to two months' remuneration as agreed, and the applicant failed to provide any facts justifying a review of the award. The application for postponement was refused due to lack of formal application and explanation, and the need for expeditious resolution of labour disputes. The arbitrator's award was confirmed and made an order of court, with costs awarded against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs. Arbitrator's award confirmed and made an order of court.

Orders

  • The award of the second respondent is made an order of court.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the third respondent an amount equal to two months' remuneration, being R19 678,46 (R9 839,23 x 2).