[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-502644-105":59,"doc-detail-502644-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","the-labour-court-of-south-africa-johannesburg-reportable-case-no-jr29219","The Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg - Reportable Case No - JR292/19","","Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg reportable case JR292/19 addresses a review application to set aside two CCMA rescission rulings concerning a default arbitration award. The court holds that once a statutory function is performed, the functionary becomes functus officio, and repeating the same function is a nullity. It further finds the commissioner lacked empowerment to arbitrate despite a party’s objection, making the arbitration award and related decisions reviewable, set aside, and replaced with rescission of the default award.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-labour-court-of-south-africa-johannesburg-reportable-case-no-jr29219/502644/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-labour-court-of-south-africa-johannesburg-reportable-case-no-jr29219/502644.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Jake","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-16","2026-10-03",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":24},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What was the main relief sought in JR292/19?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The applicant sought a review and to set aside two CCMA rescission rulings related to a default award, with the default award being rescinded and set aside.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Why did the Labour Court consider the arbitration to be a nullity?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The court reasoned that continuing arbitration in the face of an objection is inconsistent with the Constitution and that an award issued contrary to the Labour Relations Act or without necessary jurisdictional powers is a nullity.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How did the court treat objections to the commencement of arbitration after conciliation?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It held that where a party objects to commencing arbitration immediately after conciliation, the commissioner is not empowered to arbitrate, even if the objection was not raised under the CCMA Rules’ timing requirements.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},502644,1791141921,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":24,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":39,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":46},962084928904,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG  \nReportable Case no: JR292/19  \nIn the matter between:  \nVALINOR TRADING 133 CC t/a KINGS  \nCASTLE Applicant  \nand  \nTHE CCMA First Respondent  \nCOMMISSIONER M.C LEBEA N. O Second Respondent  \nL.J DE JAGER Third Respondent  \nHeard: 01 February 2023  \nDelivered: 03 February 2023  \nSummary: Application to review and set aside a rescission ruling. Once a statutory function is performed the functionary becomes functus officio. An exercise of the same function is a nullity and ought to be set aside as such.  \nWhere a party objects to a commencement of arbitration immediately after conciliation, a commissioner is not empowered to arbitrate. The fact that the objection was not done in terms of the rules of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration does not detract from the fact that a party has objected. Continuing with arbitration in the face of an objection is inconsistent with section 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.  \nAn arbitration award issued contrary to the provisions of the Labour Relations Act is a nullity and ought to be set aside as such. An award issued without the necessary jurisdictional powers is a nullity and ought to be set aside as such. Held (1): The rescission rulings are reviewed and set aside. The rulings are replaced with an order that default award is rescinded and set aside. (2): There is no order as to costs.  \nJUDGMENT  \nMOSHOANA, J  \n2  \nIntroduction   \n[1] Rules are designed for conducting proceedings and are not meant to trump a statutory provision. It has long been held that Rules exist for the Court and not the Court for the Rules or for the Court to be a captive of the Rules1 . Section 115 (2A) of the Labour Relations Act2 (LRA) affordsthe Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) a discretionary power to make regulating rules. Section 210 of the LRA provides that if any conflict, relating to matters dealt with in the LRA, arises between the LRA and the provisions of any other law save the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution), or any Act expressly amending the LRA, the provisions of the LRA will prevail.  \n[2] What serves before me is a review application seeking to review and set aside two rescission rulings related to a default award.  \nBackground facts  \n[3] In view of the approach I take in this matter, it is not necessary to beelaborative in narrating the facts appertaining the dispute between the parties involved herein. Essentially effective from 1 October 2017 to and including 30 July 2018, Valinor Trading 133 CC (Valinor) and Mr. L.J De Jager (De Jager) had a relationship. On the version of Valinor, it was an independent contracting relationship. On the version of De Jager, it was an employer and employee relationship. At a point, the said relationship ceased. On the version of De Jager, he was dismissed when the relationship ended. This assertion is disputed by Valinor.  \n[4] Owing to the fact that De Jager considered himself to have been dismissed, he referred a dispute to the CCMA and alleged an unfair dismissal. Upon receipt of the referral, the CCMA invoked the provisions of section 191 (5A) of the LRA. As such the dispute was enrolled for con/arb on 10 September 2018. On 7 September 2018, three days before the enrolled date, Valinor, objected to the immediate commencement of arbitration, within the contemplation of section 191 (5A) (c) of the LRA.  \n[5] That notwithstanding, the learned Commissioner Lebea (Lebea) decided to proceed with arbitration in the absence of Valinor. Having done so, on 19 September 2018, Lebea issued a default arbitration award (default award) against Valinor. Upon gaining knowledge of the default award, Valinor promptly applied to have the default award rescinded, within the contemplation of section 144 of the LRA. On 13 November 2018, after considering the rescission application, Lebea in a written ruling dismissed","cbCaim6r1moDMDjV","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaim6r1moDMDjV","pdf",167589,"English","# Introduction\n# Background facts\n# Evaluation\n## Section 191 (5A) (c) and interpretation","[{\"question\":\"What was the main relief sought in JR292/19?\",\"answer\":\"The applicant sought a review and to set aside two CCMA rescission rulings related to a default award, with the default award being rescinded and set aside.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the Labour Court consider the arbitration to be a nullity?\",\"answer\":\"The court reasoned that continuing arbitration in the face of an objection is inconsistent with the Constitution and that an award issued contrary to the Labour Relations Act or without necessary jurisdictional powers is a nullity.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the court treat objections to the commencement of arbitration after conciliation?\",\"answer\":\"It held that where a party objects to commencing arbitration immediately after conciliation, the commissioner is not empowered to arbitrate, even if the objection was not raised under the CCMA Rules’ timing requirements.\"}]","The Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg - Reportable Case No - JR292/19 | PDF",1791039526]