Gil and Another v Khuene Nagel SA (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR1549/02) [2003] ZALCJHB 2 (27 March 2003)

Gil and Another v Khuene Nagel SA (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR1549/02) [2003] ZALCJHB 2 (27 March 2003)

The court held that the commissioner was entitled to refuse condonation for the late referral to the CCMA as the applicant failed to provide sufficient details regarding the alleged settlement negotiations and did not make out a full case in his founding affidavit. The information before the commissioner did not support the applicant's explanation for the delay. The court further found that the commissioner was not obliged to consider the replying affidavit filed out of time, nor to call for further evidence, as the applicant had the opportunity to present his case fully in the initial application. The commissioner applied the correct rules in force at the time, and there was no...

Citation
[2003] ZALCJHB 2
Parties
Applicant: Dos Santos Gil, Alfredo Julio Matos; Respondent: Khuene Nagel SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Sicelo Mthethwa N.O.
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2003
Case Number
JR1549/02
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Review and Set Aside CCMA Condonation Ruling
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
D Pillay
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Referral, Prospects of Success, Employment Relationship, Ccma Rules
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Referral Prospects of Success Employment Relationship Ccma Rules

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dos Santos Gil, Alfredo Julio Matos

Applicant

Khuene Nagel SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Sicelo Mthethwa N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Review and Set Aside CCMA Condonation Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner erred in refusing condonation for the late referral to the CCMA.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a sufficient explanation for the delay in referring the dispute.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner was obliged to consider the applicant's replying affidavit filed out of time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the commissioner was entitled to refuse condonation for the late referral to the CCMA as the applicant failed to provide sufficient details regarding the alleged settlement negotiations and did not make out a full case in his founding affidavit. The information before the commissioner did not support the applicant's explanation for the delay. The court further found that the commissioner was not obliged to consider the replying affidavit filed out of time, nor to call for further evidence, as the applicant had the opportunity to present his case fully in the initial application. The commissioner applied the correct rules in force at the time, and there was no...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed with costs.