Zulu and Others v CCMA and Others (D317/98) [2000] ZALC 61 (30 June 2000)

Zulu and Others v CCMA and Others (D317/98) [2000] ZALC 61 (30 June 2000)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish any misconduct, gross irregularity, or excess of powers by the Commissioner. The evidence allegedly ignored was in fact considered and rejected by the Commissioner. Statements in the award, when read in context, did not amount to findings of guilt by default or irregularity. The allegations of bias were unsupported by the record or the award. The grounds advanced were more appropriate to an appeal than a review under section 145(2) of the Labour Relations Act. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2000] ZALC 61
Parties
Applicant: T Zulu and Others; Respondent: CCMA and Others
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 June 2000
Case Number
D317/98
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
G.O. Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Gross Irregularity, Misconduct by Commissioner, Bias in Arbitration, Section 145 Lra
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Gross Irregularity Misconduct by Commissioner Bias in Arbitration Section 145 Lra

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

T Zulu and Others

Applicant

CCMA and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner committed misconduct or a gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration.
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner exceeded her powers under section 145(2) of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner ignored crucial evidence or exhibited bias.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish any misconduct, gross irregularity, or excess of powers by the Commissioner. The evidence allegedly ignored was in fact considered and rejected by the Commissioner. Statements in the award, when read in context, did not amount to findings of guilt by default or irregularity. The allegations of bias were unsupported by the record or the award. The grounds advanced were more appropriate to an appeal than a review under section 145(2) of the Labour Relations Act. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application.