Sekgopo v Moyo and Others (JR789/01) [2002] ZALC 126 (5 March 2002)

Sekgopo v Moyo and Others (JR789/01) [2002] ZALC 126 (5 March 2002)

The court found that the reasoning in the arbitration award was difficult to follow and that the finding regarding the timing of the referral was not supported by the facts. Justice would be best served by setting aside the award and referring the dispute back to the CCMA for arbitration before a different commissioner, as the finding was not rationally connected to the facts and the court could not substitute its own findings for those of the arbitrator.

Citation
[2002] ZALC 126
Parties
Applicant: A Sekgopo; Respondent: Commissioner Moyo B; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: CSC Health & Hygiene Services
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2002
Case Number
JR789/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The arbitration award is set aside and the dispute is referred back to the CCMA for arbitration before a different commissioner.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Ccma, Review of Arbitration Award, Dismissal Dispute
Labour Law Jurisdiction of Ccma Review of Arbitration Award Dismissal 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Sekgopo

Applicant

Commissioner Moyo B

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

CSC Health & Hygiene Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute referred to the CCMA.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award was rationally connected to the facts.
  3. 3 Whether the dispute was referred after dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the reasoning in the arbitration award was difficult to follow and that the finding regarding the timing of the referral was not supported by the facts. Justice would be best served by setting aside the award and referring the dispute back to the CCMA for arbitration before a different commissioner, as the finding was not rationally connected to the facts and the court could not substitute its own findings for those of the arbitrator.

Court Disposition

The arbitration award is set aside and the dispute is referred back to the CCMA for arbitration before a different commissioner.

Orders

  • The award made by the first respondent is set aside.
  • The dispute is referred back to the CCMA to be arbitrated afresh before a different commissioner.