Railway Safety Regulator v Mabanga and Others (2025/019807) [2025] ZALCJHB 122 (25 March 2025)

Railway Safety Regulator v Mabanga and Others (2025/019807) [2025] ZALCJHB 122 (25 March 2025)

The Court found that the applicant had established urgency, as it had made repeated attempts to postpone the arbitration pending review and did not act dilatorily. The applicant demonstrated a prima facie right to review the CCMA's jurisdictional ruling, and irreparable harm would result if forced to arbitrate before the review is determined, as the underlying causa may be removed by a successful review. The balance of convenience favoured the applicant, as proceeding with arbitration could waste resources and lead to unnecessary litigation if the CCMA lacks jurisdiction. The applicant had no adequate alternative remedy, having exhausted correspondence and formal postponement requests to...

Citation
[2025] ZALCJHB 122
Parties
Applicant: Railway Safety Regulator; Respondent: Busisiwe Brenda Mabanga; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Charles Nakedi Machaka N.O
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 March 2025
Case Number
2025/019807
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Urgent Application for Interim Relief to Stay Arbitration Pending Review
Outcome
Interim interdict granted; arbitration proceedings stayed pending review.
Judges
G Mafa-Chali
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Stay of Arbitration, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Condonation Ruling Review, Urgency in Labour Court
Labour Law Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Stay of Arbitration Jurisdiction of Ccma Condonation Ruling Review Urgency in Labour Court

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Railway Safety Regulator

Applicant

Busisiwe Brenda Mabanga

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Charles Nakedi Machaka N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Urgent Application for Interim Relief to Stay Arbitration Pending Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to stay arbitration proceedings pending review is urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established the requirements for interim relief to stay arbitration.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court should intervene before the CCMA arbitration is finalised.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant had established urgency, as it had made repeated attempts to postpone the arbitration pending review and did not act dilatorily. The applicant demonstrated a prima facie right to review the CCMA's jurisdictional ruling, and irreparable harm would result if forced to arbitrate before the review is determined, as the underlying causa may be removed by a successful review. The balance of convenience favoured the applicant, as proceeding with arbitration could waste resources and lead to unnecessary litigation if the CCMA lacks jurisdiction. The applicant had no adequate alternative remedy, having exhausted correspondence and formal postponement requests to...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted; arbitration proceedings stayed pending review.

Orders

  • Pending finalisation of the review proceedings under case number JR1895/24, the arbitration process under case number GATW10295-22 is stayed.
  • Pending finalisation of the review proceedings under case number JR1895/24, the second and third respondents are interdicted and restrained from setting down the first respondent’s unfair dismissal dispute under case number GATW10295-22 for arbitration.