Phakathi v VDO Car Communications SA (J112/01) [2001] ZALC 199 (8 November 2001)

Phakathi v VDO Car Communications SA (J112/01) [2001] ZALC 199 (8 November 2001)

The court found that the respondent was not properly notified of the set down for the application to make the arbitration award an order of court. As a result, the respondent was absent and unaware of the proceedings. The respondent's application for rescission was not brought solely for delay, as it had also filed a review application within the prescribed time period. The applicant failed to provide substantive grounds to show that the review application had no prospects of success. The court held that the order made by JAMMY AJ on 24 February 2001 should be rescinded.

Citation
[2001] ZALC 199
Parties
Applicant: Rebecca T Phakathi; Respondent: VDO Car Communications SA
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 November 2001
Case Number
J112/01
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Order Making Arbitration Award an Order of Court
Outcome
Order rescinded; no order as to costs.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Rescission of Order, Arbitration Award Enforcement, Service of Process
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Order Arbitration Award Enforcement Service of Process

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rebecca T Phakathi

Applicant

VDO Car Communications SA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Order Making Arbitration Award an Order of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order making the arbitration award an order of court should be rescinded due to lack of proper notification to the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's application for rescission was brought solely for delay.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award is reviewable despite being granted in favour of the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was not properly notified of the set down for the application to make the arbitration award an order of court. As a result, the respondent was absent and unaware of the proceedings. The respondent's application for rescission was not brought solely for delay, as it had also filed a review application within the prescribed time period. The applicant failed to provide substantive grounds to show that the review application had no prospects of success. The court held that the order made by JAMMY AJ on 24 February 2001 should be rescinded.

Court Disposition

Order rescinded; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The order made by JAMMY AJ on 24 February 2001 is rescinded.
  • No order as to costs.