National Union of Mineworkers and Another v Tokiso Dispute Settlement (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR 397/09) [2011] ZALCJHB 180 (22 March 2011)

National Union of Mineworkers and Another v Tokiso Dispute Settlement (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR 397/09) [2011] ZALCJHB 180 (22 March 2011)

The applicants' delay in filing the review application was excessive and inadequately explained. The explanation provided by the union was wholly unsatisfactory, and the prospects of success on review were absent. The grounds for review of a private arbitration are strictly limited to those in section 33(1) of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] ZALCJHB 180
Parties
Applicant: National Union of Mineworkers; Applicant: Lot Zwane; Respondent: Tokiso Dispute Settlement (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Kate Savage N.O.; Respondent: Goedehoop Colliery
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 March 2011
Case Number
JR 397/09
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation
Outcome
The applicants' application for condonation is dismissed. The third respondent's application for condonation is granted. The application for review is dismissed. The first applicant is ordered to pay the third respondent's costs, except for costs occasioned by the late filing of the answering affidavit and the third...
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Private Arbitration Review, Arbitration Act Section 33, Condonation, Misconduct, Gross Irregularity
Labour Law Civil Procedure Private Arbitration Review Arbitration Act Section 33 Condonation Misconduct Gross Irregularity

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Union of Mineworkers

Applicant

Lot Zwane

Applicant

Tokiso Dispute Settlement (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Kate Savage N.O.

Respondent

Goedehoop Colliery

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' delay in filing the review application should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator committed misconduct, gross irregularity, or exceeded her powers under section 33 of the Arbitration Act.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award was improperly obtained.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' delay in filing the review application was excessive and inadequately explained. The explanation provided by the union was wholly unsatisfactory, and the prospects of success on review were absent. The grounds for review of a private arbitration are strictly limited to those in section 33(1) of the Arbitration Act, and the applicants failed to establish misconduct, gross irregularity, or that the arbitrator exceeded her powers. The arbitrator conducted the proceedings fairly, considered all evidence, and reached a rational and reasonable conclusion. The review application was legally flawed and had no merit. Condonation for the applicants' delay was refused, while...

Court Disposition

The applicants' application for condonation is dismissed. The third respondent's application for condonation is granted. The application for review is dismissed. The first applicant is ordered to pay the third respondent's costs, except for costs occasioned by the late filing of the answering affidavit and the third...

Orders

  • The applicants' application for condonation is dismissed.
  • The third respondent's application for condonation is granted.