Fredericks v Grobler NO and Others (C590/2007) [2010] ZALCCT 13 (3 February 2010)

Fredericks v Grobler NO and Others (C590/2007) [2010] ZALCCT 13 (3 February 2010)

The court found that the applicant's claim had prescribed under the Prescription Act. The applicant was aware, or ought reasonably to have been aware, of his claim and failed to institute proceedings within the prescribed three-year period. The letters sent to various authorities did not constitute legal processes capable of interrupting prescription. The applicant's status as a lay person did not alter the legal requirements for prescription or condonation. The court held that the commissioner did not err in refusing condonation, as the applicant failed to provide valid reasons for the excessive delay and did not demonstrate prospects of success. The claim was accordingly dismissed.

Citation
[2010] ZALCCT 13
Parties
Applicant: P Fredericks; Respondent: Hilda Grobler N.O; Respondent: General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council; Respondent: Department of Correctional Services
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 February 2010
Case Number
C590/2007
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The applicant's claim has prescribed and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Prescription Act Application, Condonation for Late Referral, Unfair Labour Practice, Jurisdiction of Ccma
Labour Law Civil Procedure Prescription Act Application Condonation for Late Referral Unfair Labour Practice 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P Fredericks

Applicant

Hilda Grobler N.O

Respondent

General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council

Respondent

Department of Correctional Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's claim for unfair labour practice has prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner erred in refusing condonation for the late referral of the dispute.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's status as a lay person affects the assessment of condonation and prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's claim had prescribed under the Prescription Act. The applicant was aware, or ought reasonably to have been aware, of his claim and failed to institute proceedings within the prescribed three-year period. The letters sent to various authorities did not constitute legal processes capable of interrupting prescription. The applicant's status as a lay person did not alter the legal requirements for prescription or condonation. The court held that the commissioner did not err in refusing condonation, as the applicant failed to provide valid reasons for the excessive delay and did not demonstrate prospects of success. The claim was accordingly dismissed.

Court Disposition

The applicant's claim has prescribed and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicant’s claim has prescribed.
  • The applicant’s case is accordingly dismissed.