Boshoff v Commission for Conciliation, Meditation and Arbitration and Others (JR968/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 174 (21 February 2017)

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

JUDGMENT

Not reportable

Case no: JR 968/15

In the matter between

WILLEM HENDRICK BOSHOFF and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,

MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION S OOSTHUIZEN N.O

PROFESSIONAL

INDUSTRIAL SERVICES

MAXAM

DANTEX CIVIL EXPLOSIVES Chambers 21 February 2017 Applicant First Respondent Second Respondent Third Respondent Fourth Respondent

RULING:

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

VAN

NIEKERK J

[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgement delivered by this court on 6 September 2016. In its judgment, the court dismissed an application to review and set aside an arbitration award issued by the second respondent on 10 April 2015.

[2] The judgment was delivered during the course of a pilot project in which opposed motion applications awaiting hearing dates were assessed to determine whether they were ripe for enrolment. In particular, and as the notice of set down in the pre-enrolment

proceedings makes clear, the court would deal with interlocutory matters, including any applications for condonation for the late

filing of process and the like. In other words, litigants were made aware that orders having final effect mud will be granted.

[3] The present matter was enrolled for hearing on 30 August 2016. It transpired at the hearing that on the face of it, the review application had been filed outside of the statutory time limit. The applicant’s attention was drawn to this fact and he was afforded an opportunity to establish that the application was indeed filed timeously. He failed to do so. In the absence of any proof that the application had been filed within the prescribed time limit, the court dismissed the application on the basis that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

[4] The first ground on which leave to appeal is sought is that the court erred in finding that the application was filed on 18 August 2015. This is correct. The date stamp on the date stamp fixed by the registrar reflects that the application was filed on 14 August 2015. However, this does not advance the applicant’s case and the fact remains that the application was filed well out of time.

[5] The second ground for review is that the court erred in finding that the ‘award’ had been filed outside of the time limit. Again, the applicant is correct in pointing out what is no more than a typographical error in paragraph 3 of the judgment. It is clear from the context of that ‘award’ ought to have read ‘application’. The error to which the applicant draws attention fails to advance his case and does not establish any ground on which leave to appeal ought to be granted.

[6] To the extent that the applicant now appears to contend that he received the award under review only on 26 June 2015, he has failed to provide any evidence that this is so. However, even if the applicant did in fact receive the award on 26 June, the application

was nevertheless filed outside of the 6-week time limit.

In my view, there is no merit in the application for leave to appeal.

I make the following order:

1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

ANDRÉ

VAN NIEKERK

JUDGE

OF THE LABOUR COURT