Sondolo IT (Pty) Ltd v Howes and Others (JR3217/06) [2009] ZALC 4; [2009] 5 BLLR 499 (LC); (2009) 30 ILJ 1954 (LC) (13 January 2009)

Sondolo IT (Pty) Ltd v Howes and Others (JR3217/06) [2009] ZALC 4; [2009] 5 BLLR 499 (LC); (2009) 30 ILJ 1954 (LC) (13 January 2009)

The Labour Court held that section 138(1) of the Labour Relations Act confers upon each commissioner a statutory duty to determine the substantial merits of the dispute before them, including the admissibility of evidence. The Court distinguished between jurisdictional rulings, which are binding on successive commissioners, and rulings on the substantive merits, which are not. Since Commissioner Zwane did not proceed with the substantive merits and the matter was postponed to another commissioner, Commissioner Shardlow was not bound by Zwane's ruling on the admissibility of evidence regarding the new charge. The Court found that Commissioner Shardlow erred in law by considering himself...

Citation
[2009] ZALC 4
Parties
Applicant: Sondolo IT (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Gordon Howes; Respondent: JC Shardlow; Respondent: CCMA
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 January 2009
Case Number
JR3217/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Ruling
Outcome
The ruling of the Second Respondent dated 20 November 2006 is reviewed and set aside. No order as to costs.
Judges
AC Basson
Legal Topics
Arbitration Procedure, Admissibility of Evidence, Commissioner Discretion, Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Procedure Admissibility of Evidence Commissioner Discretion Unfair Dismissal

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sondolo IT (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Gordon Howes

Respondent

JC Shardlow

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a commissioner presiding over an arbitration is bound by a substantive ruling made by a previous commissioner who did not proceed with the merits of the dispute.
  2. 2 Whether the second commissioner erred in law by considering himself bound by the earlier ruling on admissibility of evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Relations Act requires each commissioner to exercise an independent discretion regarding the merits.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court held that section 138(1) of the Labour Relations Act confers upon each commissioner a statutory duty to determine the substantial merits of the dispute before them, including the admissibility of evidence. The Court distinguished between jurisdictional rulings, which are binding on successive commissioners, and rulings on the substantive merits, which are not. Since Commissioner Zwane did not proceed with the substantive merits and the matter was postponed to another commissioner, Commissioner Shardlow was not bound by Zwane's ruling on the admissibility of evidence regarding the new charge. The Court found that Commissioner Shardlow erred in law by considering himself...

Court Disposition

The ruling of the Second Respondent dated 20 November 2006 is reviewed and set aside. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The ruling of the Second Respondent dated 20 November 2006 under case number GAJB 32406-05 is reviewed and set aside.
  • There is no order as to costs.