BOE Stock Brokers (Pty) Ltd v van den Heever and Others (JR1697/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 180 (8 August 2013)

BOE Stock Brokers (Pty) Ltd v van den Heever and Others (JR1697/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 180 (8 August 2013)

The court found that the first respondent had unreasonably delayed the prosecution of his review application, with no reasonable explanation for the delay. The only explanation was a lack of funds, which did not justify the failure to transcribe the record or pursue the matter, as individual applicants often manage to do so without attorneys. The court further found that the first respondent had no prospects of success in the review application, as he had resigned in the face of disciplinary proceedings and the CCMA had correctly dismissed his claims. The review application was therefore dismissed for want of prosecution.

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 180
Parties
Applicant: BOE Stock Brokers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Andries van den Heever; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Namisile Kheswa N.O.
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 August 2013
Case Number
JR1697/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Dismiss Review for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Review application dismissed for want of prosecution.
Judges
Visagie
Legal Topics
Unreasonable Delay, Review Application Dismissal, Constructive Dismissal, Res Adjudicata, Jurisdiction of Ccma
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unreasonable Delay Review Application Dismissal Constructive Dismissal Res Adjudicata Jurisdiction of Ccma

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BOE Stock Brokers (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Andries van den Heever

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Namisile Kheswa N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Dismiss Review for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent unreasonably delayed the prosecution of his review application.
  2. 2 Whether the review application should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent had prospects of success in the review application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent had unreasonably delayed the prosecution of his review application, with no reasonable explanation for the delay. The only explanation was a lack of funds, which did not justify the failure to transcribe the record or pursue the matter, as individual applicants often manage to do so without attorneys. The court further found that the first respondent had no prospects of success in the review application, as he had resigned in the face of disciplinary proceedings and the CCMA had correctly dismissed his claims. The review application was therefore dismissed for want of prosecution.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed for want of prosecution.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed for want of prosecution.