Robor (Pty) Ltd (Tube division) v Joubert NO and Others (J2264/08) [2009] ZALC 38; [2009] 8 BLLR 785 (LC); (2009) 30 ILJ 2779 (LC) (17 April 2009)

Robor (Pty) Ltd (Tube division) v Joubert NO and Others (J2264/08) [2009] ZALC 38; [2009] 8 BLLR 785 (LC); (2009) 30 ILJ 2779 (LC) (17 April 2009)

The court found that the applicant had failed to prosecute the review application for over four years and that the interests of justice did not warrant a stay of execution. The application to rescind the certification of the award had little or no prospect of success, as certification is a procedural act and not a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] ZALC 38
Parties
Applicant: Robor (Pty) Ltd (Tube division); Respondent: Joubert, N; Respondent: Tofu, A; Respondent: Hambidge N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Metal & Engineering Industries Bargaining Council
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 April 2009
Case Number
J2264/08
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Return Date After Interim Order; Application to Stay Execution of Arbitration Award Pending Review and Rescission Applications
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Todd
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Arbitration Award Enforcement, Prescription of Debt, Review Application, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Arbitration Award Enforcement Prescription of Debt Review Application Costs Order

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robor (Pty) Ltd (Tube division)

Applicant

Joubert, N

Respondent

Tofu, A

Respondent

Hambidge N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Metal & Engineering Industries Bargaining Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Return Date After Interim Order; Application to Stay Execution of Arbitration Award Pending Review and Rescission Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the execution of the arbitration award should be stayed pending review and rescission applications.
  2. 2 Whether the debt arising from the arbitration award has prescribed.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require a stay of execution in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had failed to prosecute the review application for over four years and that the interests of justice did not warrant a stay of execution. The application to rescind the certification of the award had little or no prospect of success, as certification is a procedural act and not a new award. The court held that it would be unjust for the employee to forfeit his claim due to delay in execution while a review application was pending, and that allowing prescription to defeat the claim in these circumstances would enable abuse of process by employers. The amount involved did not justify the scale of litigation, and no wider business implications were evident....

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to stay execution is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay such costs as the Second Respondent in fact incurred in the matter.