Sibanye Gold v Sibiya and Another; In re: Sibiya and Another v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1906/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 534 (6 September 2016)

Sibanye Gold v Sibiya and Another; In re: Sibiya and Another v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1906/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 534 (6 September 2016)

The court found that the delay in prosecuting the review application was inordinate and inadequately explained. The respondents failed to honour undertakings and provided no satisfactory reason for the extended delay. Furthermore, the affidavits filed in support of the review application did not address the proper threshold for review and failed to establish a case for the unreasonableness of the arbitration award. The prospects of success were minimal. Accordingly, the Rule 11 application to dismiss the review was granted.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 534
Parties
Applicant: Sibanye Gold; Respondent: Patrick Sibiya; Respondent: Ponani George Banyini
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2016
Case Number
JR1906/13
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Rule 11 Application to Dismiss Review for Delay
Outcome
Rule 11 application granted; review application dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Delay in Prosecution, Rule 11 Application, Condonation, Prospects of Success
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Delay in Prosecution Rule 11 Application Condonation Prospects of Success

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

Sibanye Gold

Applicant

Patrick Sibiya

Respondent

Ponani George Banyini

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Rule 11 Application to Dismiss Review for Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in prosecuting the review application justifies dismissal under Rule 11.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for the delay is adequate.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents have prospects of success in the review application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in prosecuting the review application was inordinate and inadequately explained. The respondents failed to honour undertakings and provided no satisfactory reason for the extended delay. Furthermore, the affidavits filed in support of the review application did not address the proper threshold for review and failed to establish a case for the unreasonableness of the arbitration award. The prospects of success were minimal. Accordingly, the Rule 11 application to dismiss the review was granted.

Court Disposition

Rule 11 application granted; review application dismissed.

Orders

  • The Rule 11 application is granted and the review application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.