Rooi v Heffer NO and Others (JR1222/07) [2008] ZALCJHB 20 (2 September 2008)

Rooi v Heffer NO and Others (JR1222/07) [2008] ZALCJHB 20 (2 September 2008)

The applicant did not provide any grounds on which the arbitrator's decision could be reviewed and set aside. In accordance with the principle established in Sidumo, the Labour Court will not interfere with an arbitration award unless the applicant demonstrates a valid basis for review. As no such grounds were advanced, the application for review was dismissed.

Citation
[2008] ZALCJHB 20
Parties
Applicant: Donald Moeketsi Rooi; Respondent: Theo Heffer, N.O; Respondent: Transnet Bargaining Council; Respondent: Wits Metrorail
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 September 2008
Case Number
JR1222/07
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Judges
Pillay D
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Dismissal for Fraud, Grounds for Review
Labour Law Review of Arbitration Award Dismissal for Fraud Grounds for Review

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donald Moeketsi Rooi

Applicant

Theo Heffer, N.O

Respondent

Transnet Bargaining Council

Respondent

Wits Metrorail

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established grounds for reviewing and setting aside the arbitration award.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal for fraudulently obtaining a driver's license was procedurally and substantively fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not provide any grounds on which the arbitrator's decision could be reviewed and set aside. In accordance with the principle established in Sidumo, the Labour Court will not interfere with an arbitration award unless the applicant demonstrates a valid basis for review. As no such grounds were advanced, the application for review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.