Bouwer v Supreme Pets CC and Others (JR121/2018) [2019] ZALCJHB 303 (8 November 2019)

Bouwer v Supreme Pets CC and Others (JR121/2018) [2019] ZALCJHB 303 (8 November 2019)

The court found that the applicant's review application was filed outside the statutory six-week period prescribed by section 145(1) of the LRA, and no condonation application or explanation for the delay was provided. The applicant's attorneys were negligent in failing to file both the referral and review applications timeously and in failing to seek condonation. The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to condone the late filing in the absence of a proper condonation application. The conduct of the applicant's attorneys warrants consideration of a costs order de bonis propriis, but they are afforded an opportunity to make representations before such an order is made.

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 303
Parties
Applicant: Andries Bouwer; Respondent: Supreme Pets CC; Respondent: Commissioner Desmond Lynch; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 November 2019
Case Number
JR121/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to late filing and absence of condonation.
Judges
Boswel
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Late Filing, Costs De Bonis Propriis
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Late Filing Costs De Bonis Propriis

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andries Bouwer

Applicant

Supreme Pets CC

Respondent

Commissioner Desmond Lynch

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's review application was filed within the statutory time limits.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's attorneys provided adequate explanation for the late filing of the review application.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to condone the late filing in the absence of a condonation application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's review application was filed outside the statutory six-week period prescribed by section 145(1) of the LRA, and no condonation application or explanation for the delay was provided. The applicant's attorneys were negligent in failing to file both the referral and review applications timeously and in failing to seek condonation. The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to condone the late filing in the absence of a proper condonation application. The conduct of the applicant's attorneys warrants consideration of a costs order de bonis propriis, but they are afforded an opportunity to make representations before such an order is made.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to late filing and absence of condonation.

Orders

  • The applicant’s review application in terms of section 145 and 158(1)(g) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, is dismissed with costs for lack of jurisdiction.
  • The applicant’s attorneys must deliver an affidavit to this Court within 30 days of the date of this judgment, explaining why they should not be ordered to pay the applicant’s costs de bonis propriis on an attorney and own client scale.