Jurisdiction is the power or competence of a Court to hear and determine an issue between parties, as well as the power to compel the parties to give effect to a judgment. The approach of a CCMA commissioner faced with a jurisdictional challenge is therefore an important issue that requires legal certainty. Unfortunately, our case law has not been uniform with regard to the various issues surrounding jurisdiction of the CCMA, for example: what facts need to be established in order for the CCMA to have jurisdiction and at what stage of the process should a commissioner deal with the issue of jurisdiction. The purpose of this treatise is to consider the various approaches of our courts to the issue of the jurisdiction of the CCMA and to determine what approach is practically best suited for CCMA commissioners when the issue of jurisdiction is in dispute. The research methodology is based on the various approaches of our courts to the jurisdiction of the CCMA as set out in Bombardier Transportation v Mtiya [2010] 8 BLLR 840 (LC). The more practical “third” approach as proposed by van Niekerk J, in Bombardier Transportation v Mtiya [2010] 8 BLLR 840 (LC), has been favoured by the Labour Court and the CCMA following the judgment. The correct approach of a commissioner when dealing with specific jurisdictional facts such as condonation and the jurisdiction of a bargaining council will further be considered. However, the predicament that commissioners face is that the Labour Appeal Court’s approach to jurisdiction is in conflict with that of the Labour Court’s approach. In conclusion, it is submitted that the Labour Appeal Court must pronounce on the issue of jurisdiction, taking into consideration the approach of the Labour Court as to create certainty regarding the correct approach of a commissioner when faced with a jurisdictional challenge.

L’arbitrage dans les pays arabes connaît aujourd’hui une nouvelle dynamique se traduisant pas la promulgation de nouvelles lois d’arbitrage et l’implantation de nouveaux centres d’arbitrage. Cette dynamique est d’autant plus particulière qu’elle se caractérise par la mise en place de zones franches juridiques conduisant à la division du pouvoir judiciaire et à la coexistence de deux systèmes juridiques, on-shore et off-shore. Cette nouvelle dynamique est-elle pour autant le reflet d’une approche désormais favorable à l’arbitrage ? Quelle est la place faite à l’arbitrage dans les pays arabes? La réponse à ces problématiques majeures ne peut s’effectuer qu’à travers l’étude du recours en annulation des sentences arbitrales. En effet, l’approche de l’arbitrage dans les pays arabes ne peut être évaluée qu’à la lumière de la position des tribunaux étatiques lors du contrôle judiciaire de la sentence arbitrale. Il s’agira d’examiner la nature du recours en annulation, sa coexistence avec les voies de recours ordinaires, son exercice et les différents motifs d’annulation. Il s’agira également d’analyser les règlements d’arbitrage qui prennent position sur les voies de recours et in fine sur le sort de la sentence arbitrale à travers l’étude de la demande de reconnaissance et d’exécution des sentences arbitrales, aussi bien dans les zones on-shore que dans les zones off-shore. Cette étude permettra ainsi de déterminer la perception de l’arbitrage dans les pays arabes et les réformes qui doivent être entreprises en vue de sa promotion comme mode normal de résolution des litiges du commerce international. / Today, within Arab states, a new dynamic in arbitration is taking shape. This is reflected in the proliferation of new arbitration legislation and the establishment of emergent arbitration centres across the region. What makes this new dynamic even more remarkable is the contemporaneous establishment of legal free-zones where judicial power is divided and co-exists between two systems best described as on-shore and off-shore. This thesis seeks to explore the possible implications of this new dynamic with a view to determining whether or not it can be considered a reflection of a developing, more favourable approach to arbitration in Arab countries. In order to address this issue effectively, this thesis will examine the present and immediate approaches to arbitration of judiciaries in 10 Arab states. This will be achieved through the study and analysis of the action for setting aside arbitral awards in these Arab states. This thesis will look at the nature, exercise and application of the action for setting aside arbitral awards. In addition, it will explore the grounds for this action and how, as a recourse, the action for setting aside exists alongside and interacts with other avenues of recourse. In order to assess the current approaches of judiciaries, within Arab countries, this thesis will also analyze current arbitration legislation and institutional regulations. This is in addition to the emerging trends and common practice, that is, in the context of the recognition and execution of arbitral awards, in both on-shore and off-shore legal systems.

Foreign investments in SADC are regulated by Annex 1 of the SADC Protocol on Finance and Investments (SADC FIP), as well as the laws of SADC Member States. At present, SADC faces the challenge that this regime for the regulation of foreign investments is unstable, unsatisfactory and unpredictable. Furthermore, the state of the rule of law in some SADC Member States is unsatisfactory. This negatively affects the security of foreign investments regulated by this regime. The main reasons for this state of affairs are briefly explained below. The regulatory regime for foreign investments in SADC is unstable, due to recent policy reviews and amendments of key regulatory instruments that have taken place. Major developments in this regard have been the suspension of the SADC Tribunal during 2010, the amendment of the SADC Tribunal Protocol during 2014 to bar natural and legal persons from access to the Tribunal, and the amendment of Annex 1 during 2016 to remove investor access to international investor-state arbitration, better known as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The regulation of foreign investments in SADC has been unsatisfactory, among others because some SADC Member States have failed or neglected to harmonise their investment laws with both the 2006 and the 2016 Annex 1. Furthermore, SADC Member States such as Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Malawi, Mauritius, Seychelles, Eswatini, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe have multiple Regional Economic Community (REC) memberships. This places these Member States in a position whereby they have conflicting interests and treaty obligations. Finally, the future of the regime for the regulation of foreign investments in SADC is unpredictable, due to regional integration efforts such as the recent formation of the COMESA-EAC-SADC Tripartite Free Zone (T-FTA) and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). The T-FTA is entitled to have its investment protocol, while the AfCFTA investment protocol will be negotiated from 2018 until 2020. These developments entail that the 2016 Annex 1 will soon be replaced by an investment protocol at either the T-FTA or AfCFTA levels, thereby ushering a new regime for the regulation of foreign investments in SADC. The unknown nature of the future regulations create uncertainty and instability among foreign investors and host states alike. This study analyses the regulation of foreign investments in terms of Annex 1 and selected laws of SADC Member States. In the end, it makes the three findings mentioned above. In order to address these findings, the study makes four recommendations. The first is that foreign investments in SADC must be regulated at African Union (AU) level, by means of an AfCFTA investment protocol (which incidentally is now the case). Secondly, investor-state disputes must be referred to the courts of a host state, optional ISDS, the African Court of Justice and Human Rights (ACJ&HR) or other agreed forum. Thirdly, an African Justice Scoreboard (AJS) must be established. The AJS will act as a gateway to determine whether an investor-state dispute shall be referred to the courts of a host state, ISDS, the ACJ&HR or other forums. Fourthly, the office of an African Investment Ombud (AIO) must be created. The AIO shall facilitate the early resolution of investor-state disputes, so as to reduce the number of disputes that may end-up in litigation or arbitration. / Mercantile Law / LL. D.