Tube v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR680/02) [2003] ZALC 154 (18 March 2003)

40 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Review application — Applicant seeking leave to appeal against dismissal of review application — Respondents not appearing in court — Court emphasizing that review applications are not granted by default and must be considered on their merits — No reasonable prospect of success in appeal — Leave to appeal refused.

Sneller Verbatim/JduP
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JR680/02
2003.03.18
In the matter between
TUBE SEGAETSHO ARCHIBALD Applicant
and
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION 1st Respondent
G.G. SEBOTHA (COMMISSIONER) 2nd Respondent
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 3rd Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
_______________________________________________________________
_
REVELAS, J:
1. This   is   an   application   brought   by   the   applicant   for  
leave   to   appeal   against   a   judgment   granted   on   12  
November   2002,   wherein   I   dismissed   the   applicant's  
application for review.
2. The main ground of appeal is that the respondents did

not   appear   in   court   on   the   day   of   the   review  
application,   and   I   therefore   erred   in   drawing   an  
inference when I considered the merits of the matter. 
1. 1. 3. It appears that the applicant believes that I was  
somehow   precluded   from   considering   the   record   in   his  
review application, purely because it was unopposed on  
the day the matter was argued.
4. However,   a   review   application   is   not   simply   for   the  
asking and is not simply granted by default because it  
is unopposed. The judge must always consider the merits  
as   the   merits   may   possibly   reflect   negatively   on  
reasoning of the arbitrator in question. 
5. The   applicant   has   not   addressed,   in   his   heads   of  
argument,   any   of   the   grounds   upon   which   he   seeks   to  
rely   to   have   the   award   set   aside,   or   why   I   erred   in  
granting the application.
6. In   my   view,   there   is   not   even   a   reasonable   prospect  
that   another   court   would   come   to   a   different  
conclusion, and in the circumstances leave to appeal is  
refused.
___________________
E. Revelas