South Africa Case Law

Amalungelo Worker's Union obo Mayisela and Others v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (JA 07/21)

Amalungelo Worker's Union obo Mayisela and Others v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (JA 07/21) [2021] ZALAC 55; (2022) 43 ILJ 600 (LAC) (29 November 2021)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA 07/21

Judges

Davis JA, Coppin JA, Kubushi AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction because the section 198B dispute was referred late and no condonation was sought.

• Fixed Term Contracts
• Jurisdiction Of Ccma
• Late Referral Condonation
• Section 198b Lra
• Arbitration Awards
• Continuing Wrong

Transasia Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Others v Umsombovu Coal (Pty) Ltd and Others (09023/2019)

Transasia Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Others v Umsombovu Coal (Pty) Ltd and Others (09023/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 230 (28 June 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

09023/2019

Judges

WHG van der Linde, D Fisher, DN Unterhalter

The court held that the March 2019 order making the arbitral award an order of court was interlocutory and did not have the effect of a final judgment. Therefore, its operation and execution were not suspended pending appeal under section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The respondent's application under section 18(3) to lift suspension was ill-founded, as the order was not subject to automatic suspension. The arbitrator had jurisdiction to grant interim relief under the parties' agreement and the AFSA Expedited Rules. The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the court a quo granting rel…

Source excerpt

• Interlocutory Orders
• Arbitration Awards
• Superior Courts Act Section 18
• Mining Rights Dispute
• Urgent Interdict
• Jurisdiction Of Arbitrator

Myathaza v Johannesburg Metropolitan Bus Service (Soc) Limited t/a Metrobus; Mazibuko v Concor Plant; Cellucity (Pty) Ltd v CWU obo Peters (JA122/14)

Myathaza v Johannesburg Metropolitan Bus Service (Soc) Limited t/a Metrobus; Mazibuko v Concor Plant; Cellucity (Pty) Ltd v CWU obo Peters (JA122/14) [2015] ZALAC 45; (2016) 37 ILJ 413 (LAC); [2016] 1 BLLR 24 (LAC); 2016 (3) SA 74 (LAC) (6 November 2015)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA122/14; JA39/14; CA3/14

Judges

Musi JA, Coppin JA, Makgoka AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Prescription Act applies to arbitration awards made under the Labour Relations Act prior to the 2015 amendment. Such awards, whether for compensation or reinstatement, constitute debts under the Prescription Act and are subject to a three-year prescriptive period, not thirty years as for judgment debts. Certification of the award does not affect when the debt becomes due; prescription runs from the date of the award unless otherwise indicated. Review applications and warrants of execution do not interrupt prescription, as they are not processes by which t…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Application
• Arbitration Awards
• Unfair Dismissal
• Review Application
• Reinstatement
• Compensation

National Union of Mineworkers and Others v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR 2396/10)

National Union of Mineworkers and Others v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR 2396/10) [2015] ZALCJHB 117 (9 April 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR 2396/10

Judge

Venter

The Labour Court dismissed leave to appeal, finding no novel legal issue or reasonable prospect of a different outcome on the review of dismissals and compensation.

• Parity Principle
• Consistency In Dismissals
• Arbitration Awards
• Compensation For Unfair Dismissal
• Disciplinary Charges
• Review Of Ccma Awards

Newlands Surgical Clinic (Pty) Ltd v Peninsula Eye Clinic (Pty) Ltd (086/2014)

Newlands Surgical Clinic (Pty) Ltd v Peninsula Eye Clinic (Pty) Ltd (086/2014) [2015] ZASCA 25; 2015 (4) SA 34 (SCA); [2015] 2 All SA 322 (SCA) (20 March 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

086/2014

Judges

Brand, Lewis, Pillay, Dambuza, Mayat

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that reinstatement of a deregistered company under s 82(4) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 operates with complete retrospective effect, validating all corporate activities performed during the period of deregistration, including arbitration proceedings and related court orders. The court rejected the notion of partial retrospectivity, finding no textual basis to distinguish between the restoration of property and validation of corporate acts. The SCA further confirmed that its jurisdiction is strictly confined to the grounds upon which leave to appeal was gran…

Source excerpt

• Companies Act 71 Of 2008
• Deregistration And Reinstatement
• Retrospective Effect
• Arbitration Awards
• Public Policy Illegality