Camm Trans CC v Maila NO and Others; In re: Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union obo Malandvula and Others v Maila NO and Others (JR975/17) [2020] ZALCJHB 39 (14 February 2020)
The court found that the third respondent failed to prosecute its review application diligently, breached multiple time frames set by the Practice Manual and the Labour Court Rules, and did not seek condonation for late filings despite being prompted by the applicant. The third respondent also failed to comply with a previous court order requiring it to provide security and file an affidavit to uplift the review application from the archives. The cumulative effect of these failures resulted in the review application lapsing and remaining archived. The prejudice to the individual applicants was significant, as they were denied reinstatement under a valid arbitration award. The court held...
- Citation
- [2020] ZALCJHB 39
- Parties
- Applicant: CAMM Trans CC; Respondent: Commissioner Davids Maila N.O; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union obo S Malandvula and 13 Others
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 14 February 2020
- Case Number
- JR 975/17
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Rule 11 Application to Dismiss Review for Delay
- Outcome
- The review application under case number JR 975/17 is dismissed. The third respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application.
- Judges
- Z Lallie
- Legal Topics
- Review Application Delay, Condonation, Practice Manual Compliance, Arbitration Award Enforcement
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
CAMM Trans CC
Applicant
Commissioner Davids Maila N.O
Respondent
The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Respondent
Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union obo S Malandvula and 13 Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Rule 11 Application to Dismiss Review for Delay
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the third respondent's review application should be dismissed due to inordinate delay in prosecution.
- 2 Whether the late answering affidavit should be accepted without condonation.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a costs order against the third respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the third respondent failed to prosecute its review application diligently, breached multiple time frames set by the Practice Manual and the Labour Court Rules, and did not seek condonation for late filings despite being prompted by the applicant. The third respondent also failed to comply with a previous court order requiring it to provide security and file an affidavit to uplift the review application from the archives. The cumulative effect of these failures resulted in the review application lapsing and remaining archived. The prejudice to the individual applicants was significant, as they were denied reinstatement under a valid arbitration award. The court held...
Court Disposition
The review application under case number JR 975/17 is dismissed. The third respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application.
Orders
- The review application under case number JR 975/17 is dismissed.
- The third respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment