Ngobeni v A.I.S. Redding S.C. NO and Another (JR398/07) [2008] ZALC 89; (2009) 30 ILJ 365 (LC) (27 June 2008)

Ngobeni v A.I.S. Redding S.C. NO and Another (JR398/07) [2008] ZALC 89; (2009) 30 ILJ 365 (LC) (27 June 2008)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay in filing the review application, with material periods left unexplained and no confirmatory affidavits from counsel. Even considering prospects of success, the applicant did not establish any reviewable defect in the arbitrator's conduct. The arbitrator's decision to restrict his jurisdiction to the terms of the arbitration agreement, which did not refer to the Protected Disclosures Act, was not misconduct nor a gross irregularity. The applicant was not entitled to enlarge the issues after the arbitration hearing commenced, and there was no express or tacit agreement to do so. The applicant...

Citation
[2008] ZALC 89
Parties
Applicant: Dr Enock Ngobeni; Respondent: A.I.S. Redding S.C. (N.O.); Respondent: MSD (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2008
Case Number
JR398/07
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation
Outcome
Condonation for late filing of the review application is refused. The review application is dismissed. The matter is remitted to the arbitrator for continuation of the arbitration hearing. Costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Cele AJ
Legal Topics
Arbitration Act Review, Protected Disclosures Act, Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Jurisdiction of Arbitrator
Labour Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Act Review Protected Disclosures Act Condonation Unfair Dismissal Jurisdiction of Arbitrator

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Enock Ngobeni

Applicant

A.I.S. Redding S.C. (N.O.)

Respondent

MSD (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's ruling excluding an automatically unfair dismissal claim based on the Protected Disclosures Act was reviewable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to enlarge the issues in dispute after commencement of arbitration.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for the late filing of the review application should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay in filing the review application, with material periods left unexplained and no confirmatory affidavits from counsel. Even considering prospects of success, the applicant did not establish any reviewable defect in the arbitrator's conduct. The arbitrator's decision to restrict his jurisdiction to the terms of the arbitration agreement, which did not refer to the Protected Disclosures Act, was not misconduct nor a gross irregularity. The applicant was not entitled to enlarge the issues after the arbitration hearing commenced, and there was no express or tacit agreement to do so. The applicant...

Court Disposition

Condonation for late filing of the review application is refused. The review application is dismissed. The matter is remitted to the arbitrator for continuation of the arbitration hearing. Costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed.
  • The review application is dismissed.