Baloyi v National Bargaining Council for the Chemical Industry and Others (JR557/06) [2007] ZALCJHB 39 (9 May 2007)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any acceptable explanation for the delay in filing the review application and did not demonstrate any prospects of success on the merits. The condonation application was described as hopeless and lacking merit. The court concluded that there was no basis to grant...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] ZALCJHB 39
- Parties
- Applicant: Makhosini Abel Baloyi; Respondent: National Bargaining Council for the Chemical Industry; Respondent: Johnny Mathebula N.O; Respondent: Caltex SA
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR557/06
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Application for Condonation of Late Review Filing
- Outcome
- Application for condonation dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- G N Moshoana
- Legal Topics
- Condonation, Late Filing, Prospects of Success, Review of Arbitration Award
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Makhosini Abel Baloyi
Applicant
National Bargaining Council for the Chemical Industry
Respondent
Johnny Mathebula N.O
Respondent
Caltex SA
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation of Late Review Filing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant provided sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the review application.
- 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated prospects of success on the merits of the review.
- 3 Whether the condonation application should be granted despite the delay.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to provide any acceptable explanation for the delay in filing the review application and did not demonstrate any prospects of success on the merits. The condonation application was described as hopeless and lacking merit. The court concluded that there was no basis to grant condonation and dismissed the application with costs.
Court Disposition
Application for condonation dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for condonation is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: JR 557\06
In the matter between:
MAKHOSINI ABEL BALOYI Applicant
And
NATIONAL BARGAINING COUNCIL First
Respondent
FOR THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
JOHNNY MATHEBULA N.O Second
Respondent
CALTEX SA Third
Respondent
JUDGMENT
MOSHOANA AJ
Introduction
[1] This is a review application of a ruling made by the Second Respondent made on 28 October 2005. The application is opposed.
Background facts
[2] The Applicant was dismissed for misconduct. Upon consultation with his union he was told that his case is weak. Outside the required period, 13 days later he referred the dispute to the First Respondent. The Second Respondent considered a Condonation
application. He found that the 13 days delay was not excessive. He however, refused to condone the non-compliance due to lack of good cause being shown and prospect of success on the merits.
[3] About three and half months later the Applicant filed a review application. This was obviously outside the six weeks period. No Condonation application was filed. The matter was placed on the motion roll of 13 December 2006. Mokgoataleng AJ made the following
order:
3.1. The matter is postponed sine dine to enable Respondent (applicant) to file its Condonation within 60 days.
3.2. There is no order as to costs.
Around 13 December 2006, shortly after the order, the Applicant filed a sworn statement. In that statement (which he later contended is the condonation application) a feeble attempt was made to explain the delay. He did not deal with the prospects of success.
Submissions in court
[4] During submissions the Applicant argued that he has prospects of success. Upon inquiry, he indicated to the court that the Second
Respondent was not in his view allowed to determine the Condonation application without him being present. In reply he submitted that he was not aware that the rules of the First Respondent allowed determination without hearing the parties.
Analysis
[5] This is one of those hopeless cases that consume the court’s time. There is absolutely no merits in the Condonation application.
There is no acceptable explanation neither is there prospects of success on the review application.
Order
1. Accordingly the application for Condonation is dismissed with costs.
_______________
G N MOSHOANA
Acting Judge of the Labour Court
Johannesburg
Appearances
For the Applicant : In Person
For the Respondent : M Delany
Date of hearing : 03\05\2007
Date of Judgment : 09\05\2007