Pholo v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J 818/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 192 (31 August 2020)

Pholo v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J 818/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 192 (31 August 2020)

The applicant failed to establish urgency as required by the rules of the Labour Court. He did not provide adequate reasons for seeking urgent relief or for abridging the timeframes set out in the rules. The existence of two jurisdictional rulings at the CCMA does not constitute unfairness or grounds for court intervention, especially as both rulings confirm the CCMA's jurisdiction and are not contradictory. The applicant's right to a fair hearing remains protected, and there is no basis for the court to interdict the arbitration or to stay the jurisdictional ruling. The requirements for a final interdict have not been satisfied, and the arbitration should proceed so that all issues can...

Citation
[2020] ZALCJHB 192
Parties
Applicant: Goitsione Moses Pholo; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Forster Maluleke N.O; Respondent: Greater Taung Local Municipality
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 August 2020
Case Number
J 818/20
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Interdict Arbitration and Stay Jurisdictional Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed; arbitration to proceed.
Judges
Mahosi
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Unfair Dismissal, Final Interdict Requirements
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgent Interdict Jurisdiction of Ccma Unfair Dismissal Final Interdict Requirements

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goitsione Moses Pholo

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Forster Maluleke N.O

Respondent

Greater Taung Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Interdict Arbitration and Stay Jurisdictional Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established urgency justifying deviation from the ordinary rules.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a final interdict to stop the arbitration proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the existence of two jurisdictional rulings at the CCMA constitutes unfairness or grounds for court intervention.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish urgency as required by the rules of the Labour Court. He did not provide adequate reasons for seeking urgent relief or for abridging the timeframes set out in the rules. The existence of two jurisdictional rulings at the CCMA does not constitute unfairness or grounds for court intervention, especially as both rulings confirm the CCMA's jurisdiction and are not contradictory. The applicant's right to a fair hearing remains protected, and there is no basis for the court to interdict the arbitration or to stay the jurisdictional ruling. The requirements for a final interdict have not been satisfied, and the arbitration should proceed so that all issues can...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; arbitration to proceed.

Orders

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