Gaoshubelwe and Others v Pie Man's Pantry (Pty) Limited (JS2341/05) [2008] ZALC 96; (2009) 30 ILJ 347 (LC) (22 July 2008)

Gaoshubelwe and Others v Pie Man's Pantry (Pty) Limited (JS2341/05) [2008] ZALC 96; (2009) 30 ILJ 347 (LC) (22 July 2008)

The court held that the referral of the dispute to the CCMA by the applicants prior to the lapse of the three-year prescription period constituted a process envisaged by section 15(1) of the Prescription Act, thereby interrupting prescription. The applicants' claim had not prescribed. Regarding condonation, the court found the explanation for the delay reasonable, particularly given the communication breakdown between the applicants and their union, FAWU, and the lack of direct contact with the attorneys. The delay after learning of the review outcome was also reasonably explained by the need to locate other applicants and secure funds. The court accepted that the applicants had prospects...

Citation
[2008] ZALC 96
Parties
Applicant: Job Gaoshubelwe and Others; Respondent: Pie Man's Pantry (Pty) Limited
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 July 2008
Case Number
JS2341/05
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation and Prescription Plea
Outcome
Application for condonation granted; prescription plea dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Filing, Prescription, Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation for Late Filing Prescription Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Job Gaoshubelwe and Others

Applicant

Pie Man's Pantry (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation and Prescription Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' claim for unfair dismissal has prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the late filing of the statement of case by the applicants should be condoned.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have provided a reasonable explanation for the delay and demonstrated prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the referral of the dispute to the CCMA by the applicants prior to the lapse of the three-year prescription period constituted a process envisaged by section 15(1) of the Prescription Act, thereby interrupting prescription. The applicants' claim had not prescribed. Regarding condonation, the court found the explanation for the delay reasonable, particularly given the communication breakdown between the applicants and their union, FAWU, and the lack of direct contact with the attorneys. The delay after learning of the review outcome was also reasonably explained by the need to locate other applicants and secure funds. The court accepted that the applicants had prospects...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation granted; prescription plea dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicants' late delivery of the statement of claim is condoned.
  • The plea of prescription is dismissed.