Chetty v Rafee NO and Others (JS755/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 400 (14 October 2016)

Chetty v Rafee NO and Others (JS755/13) [2016] ZALCJHB 400 (14 October 2016)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a full and satisfactory explanation for the extensive delay in filing the review application, with significant periods unaccounted for. The applicant's prospects of success on review were questionable, as the documentation and circumstances indicated an...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 400
Parties
Applicant: Striniwasan Chetty; Respondent: Commissioner Mohamed Rafee, N.O.; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Neo Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 October 2016
Case Number
JS755/13
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review of CCMA Jurisdictional Ruling
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed; applicant ordered to pay costs.
Judges
Bekker
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Ccma, Condonation for Late Filing, Employment Relationship, Review of Rulings
Labour Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Ccma Condonation for Late Filing Employment Relationship Review of Rulings

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Striniwasan Chetty

Applicant

Commissioner Mohamed Rafee, N.O.

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Neo Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review of CCMA Jurisdictional Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was an employee of the third respondent for purposes of CCMA jurisdiction.
  2. 2 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the review application.
  3. 3 Whether the explanation for the delay covers the entire period and is satisfactory.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a full and satisfactory explanation for the extensive delay in filing the review application, with significant periods unaccounted for. The applicant's prospects of success on review were questionable, as the documentation and circumstances indicated an independent contractor relationship rather than employment. The applicant erroneously relied on the reasonableness test for review, whereas the correct test was one of correctness. In light of the insufficient explanation for delay and lack of prospects of success, condonation was refused. The court further held that costs should follow the result, as there was no ongoing employment...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed; applicant ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for the late filing of the review application by the applicant under this case number is dismissed.
  • The applicant is directed to pay the third respondent's costs on the party-and-party scale.