South Africa Case Law

Chairperson of the CCMA Governing Body and Others v Phoshoko (6029/2019)

Chairperson of the CCMA Governing Body and Others v Phoshoko (6029/2019) [2022] ZALMPPHC 57 (28 October 2022)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

6029/2019

Judge

MG Mashaba

The court found that the order granted on 20 May 2021 was erroneously made in the absence of the applicants, without the CCMA record being filed, and in a matter over which the High Court lacked jurisdiction. The respondent conceded the existence of a patent error. The court held that rescission was warranted under Rule 42(1)(a) and (b), as the order was granted contrary to procedural requirements and contained ambiguities. The court rejected the respondent's request to rescind only ambiguous portions, finding that partial rescission would alter the substance and meaning of the original order…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 42
• Review Of Ccma Proceedings
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Unopposed Application
• Procedural Error

Motlhamme and Others v Gold Rush Morula and Others (JR1841/18)

Motlhamme and Others v Gold Rush Morula and Others (JR1841/18) [2021] ZALCJHB 173 (21 July 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1841/18

Judge

Prinsloo

The Labour Court found that it lacks jurisdiction to review a settlement agreement that has not been made an arbitration award under section 142A of the LRA. The applicants failed to identify any provision in the LRA or other law conferring jurisdiction for the relief sought. The settlement agreement is a contract between the parties, and any challenge to its validity must be based on common law principles of contract, such as duress or misrepresentation, not by way of review. The conduct of the arbitrator during conciliation is not reviewable, as the arbitrator does not exercise statutory de…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Review Of Ccma Proceedings
• Duress In Contract
• Conciliation Process

Cindi v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2610/13)

Cindi v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2610/13) [2015] ZALCJHB 236; [2015] 12 BLLR 1207 (LC); (2015) 36 ILJ 3080 (LC) (4 August 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2610/13

Judge

Molahlehi

The Court held that the settlement agreement concluded between the applicant and the third respondent during conciliation was not a decision or award of the Commissioner and therefore could not be reviewed under section 158(1)(g) of the LRA. The Commissioner’s role is to facilitate consensus, not to impose a decision. Any improper influence by the Commissioner during conciliation does not automatically vitiate the agreement; the remedy lies in challenging the validity of the agreement under common law contractual principles, such as duress or misrepresentation. Since the settlement agreement…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement
• Review Of Ccma Proceedings
• Unfair Dismissal
• Contractual Validity

Malebo v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 1508/2009)

Malebo v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 1508/2009) [2010] ZALC 97 (15 April 2010)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

JR 1508/2009

Judge

Lagrange

The Labour Court refused to review and set aside a CCMA settlement agreement, finding no basis to show uninformed consent or improper commissioner influence.

• Settlement Agreement
• Review Of Ccma Proceedings
• Unfair Dismissal
• Consent In Settlement
• Section 145 Lra
• Section 158 Lra