Royal Mnandi (Pty) Limited v Jones and Others (46600/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 443 (11 December 2013)

Royal Mnandi (Pty) Limited v Jones and Others (46600/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 443 (11 December 2013)

The court found that the applicant's complaints did not establish any gross irregularity, misconduct, or excess of mandate by the appeal tribunal. The issues decided by the tribunal were within the scope of the pleadings and the findings of the arbitrator. The tribunal's excision of clause 4 of the addendum was justified by the evidence that it was inadvertently included and belonged to a different agreement. The applicant's allegations of bias and disregard of evidence were unsupported by the record. The court emphasized that the applicant was attempting to appeal the merits of the arbitration award under the guise of a review, which is not permissible under section 33(1) of the...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 443
Parties
Applicant: Royal Mnandi (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Louis Martin Jones; Respondent: Johann Christiaan Kriegler, N.O.; Respondent: Percy Blieden, N.O.; Respondent: John Michael Suttner, N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 December 2013
Case Number
46600/2012
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Appeal Award
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
S L Magardie
Legal Topics
Arbitration Review, Gross Irregularity, Party Autonomy, Employment Contract, Commission Dispute
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Arbitration Review Gross Irregularity Party Autonomy Employment Contract Commission Dispute

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Mnandi (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Louis Martin Jones

Respondent

Johann Christiaan Kriegler, N.O.

Respondent

Percy Blieden, N.O.

Respondent

John Michael Suttner, N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Appeal Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration appeal tribunal exceeded its mandate by deciding issues not submitted before it.
  2. 2 Whether there were acts of gross irregularity in the appeal tribunal proceedings, including disregard of relevant evidence and submissions.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal tribunal was correct in excising clause 4 of the addendum to the employment contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's complaints did not establish any gross irregularity, misconduct, or excess of mandate by the appeal tribunal. The issues decided by the tribunal were within the scope of the pleadings and the findings of the arbitrator. The tribunal's excision of clause 4 of the addendum was justified by the evidence that it was inadvertently included and belonged to a different agreement. The applicant's allegations of bias and disregard of evidence were unsupported by the record. The court emphasized that the applicant was attempting to appeal the merits of the arbitration award under the guise of a review, which is not permissible under section 33(1) of the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed with costs.