Rofhiwa v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1013/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 554 (6 September 2016)
The court found that the applicant had accepted payment of the compensation awarded in the arbitration, thereby satisfying the award. By accepting payment, the applicant perempted his right to challenge the award further. The review application was therefore dismissed. Regarding costs, the court was not persuaded...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] ZALCJHB 554
- Parties
- Applicant: Rofhiwa Ramanyimi; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Pretorius, D. A.; Respondent: National Housing Finance Corporation
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR1013/13
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Review
- Outcome
- Application dismissed; limited costs order against applicant's attorney for wasted costs of adjournment.
- Judges
- Gush
- Legal Topics
- Review of Arbitration Award, Peremption, Costs Order, Procedural Fairness
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rofhiwa Ramanyimi
Applicant
Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Respondent
Pretorius, D. A.
Respondent
National Housing Finance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to review the arbitration award after accepting payment of the compensation awarded.
- 2 Whether peremption applies to bar the review application.
- 3 Whether a costs order should be made against the applicant or his attorney.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had accepted payment of the compensation awarded in the arbitration, thereby satisfying the award. By accepting payment, the applicant perempted his right to challenge the award further. The review application was therefore dismissed. Regarding costs, the court was not persuaded that a general costs order against the applicant or his attorney was warranted, except for the wasted costs incurred due to the adjournment on 6 June 2016, which were attributable to the applicant's attorney's conduct in filing a questionable medical certificate.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed; limited costs order against applicant's attorney for wasted costs of adjournment.
Orders
- The applicant’s application is dismissed.
- There is no order for costs, save for the wasted costs incurred when the matter was adjourned on 6 June 2016, which the applicant’s attorney is ordered to pay.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
JR1013/13
In the matter between:
ROFHIWA RAMANYIMI
Applicant
and
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
First Respondent
PRETORIUS, D. A.
Second Respondent
NATIONAL HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION
Third Respondent
Heard: 06 September 2016
Delivered: 06 September 2016
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GUSH J
Introduction
[1] In this matter the applicant applied to review an award handed down by the second respondent, an award, which I might add, was filed late in the proceedings. The matter dates back to 2013.
The arbitrator in his award finds that there was procedural unfairness basis and awarded the applicant a sum of money as compensation in an amount of approximately R45 000.
[2] The applicant applies to review the award and sets out in an extremely and unnecessary lengthy founding affidavit what the applicant believes to be his grounds of review. Unfortunately the grounds of review are more akin to an appeal than a review.
Mr Malatji fairly in argument simply indicated that he could not take the matter any further and relied only the grounds raised in the founding affidavit. He offered no further argument in the matter.
[3] During the course of argument it however became clear that the third respondent had in fact satisfied the award by paying the applicant, the amount set out in the award which the applicant accepted. This was confirmed by Mr Malatji, who appeared on behalf of the applicant. In those circumstances the matter is settled the award has been satisfied.
[4] Having accepted the payment peremption applies. The applicant accepted payment and that spells the end of the matter. This, too, Mr Malatji fairly conceded was the case.
[5] Mr Beaton argued that, given the manner in which the matter was dealt with by the applicant’s attorneys, the court should make an order that the applicant’s attorneys pay the costs. Given the nature of the matter and the fact that the award had been satisfied, I am not persuaded that it is in the interest of fairness or justice that a costs order be made against the applicant or the applicant’s attorney, save for the wasted costs incurred in respect of the 8 June 2016.
[6] In that regard I am satisfied that the applicant’s attorney should pay the costs of that adjournment. The reason for that being that the applicant’s attorney saw fit to file with this court a medical certificate in which the applicant’s attorney purports to have been booked off ill for a period of seven days, from the 6 June until the 13 June, and the court is advised that during that period he will not be fit for work due to his illness being a marked generalised body tiredness, marked anxious mood and insomnia. To the best of my knowledge, neither those warrant a person being booked off for illness.
[7] In the circumstances, I make the following order.
[8] Order
1. The applicant’s application is dismissed.
2. There is no order for costs, save for the costs incurred when the
matter was adjourned, wasted costs incurred when the matter was adjourned on the 6 June 2016. The applicant’s attorney is ordered to pay these wasted cost.
__________________
Gush J
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa