GIWUSA obo Heyneke v Klein Karoo Kooperasie Beperk (LC463/04) [2005] ZALC 9; [2005] 8 BLLR 791 (LC); (2005) 26 ILJ 1083 (LC) (6 May 2005)

GIWUSA obo Heyneke v Klein Karoo Kooperasie Beperk (LC463/04) [2005] ZALC 9; [2005] 8 BLLR 791 (LC); (2005) 26 ILJ 1083 (LC) (6 May 2005)

The court found that the applicant's referral to the Labour Court was late, as it was made 11 months after the certificate of outcome was issued, far exceeding the prescribed 90-day period. The applicant's argument that no condonation was required was rejected, as the telephonic conciliation by the CCMA constituted a valid attempt at conciliation under the Labour Relations Act. The applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, and his representative pursued an incorrect and artificial line of argument. The court held that, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay, it was not necessary to consider prospects of success. Consequently,...

Citation
[2005] ZALC 9
Parties
Applicant: GIWUSA obo PG Heyneke; Respondent: Klein Karoo Kooperasie Beperk
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 May 2005
Case Number
LC463/04
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application for condonation for late referral refused with costs.
Judges
Stelzner
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Referral, Conciliation, Jurisdiction, Retrenchment
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Referral Conciliation Jurisdiction Retrenchment

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GIWUSA obo PG Heyneke

Applicant

Klein Karoo Kooperasie Beperk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's referral to the Labour Court was late and required condonation.
  2. 2 Whether the telephonic conciliation conducted by the CCMA constituted proper conciliation under the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay in referral.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's referral to the Labour Court was late, as it was made 11 months after the certificate of outcome was issued, far exceeding the prescribed 90-day period. The applicant's argument that no condonation was required was rejected, as the telephonic conciliation by the CCMA constituted a valid attempt at conciliation under the Labour Relations Act. The applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, and his representative pursued an incorrect and artificial line of argument. The court held that, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay, it was not necessary to consider prospects of success. Consequently,...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation for late referral refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for the late referral of the applicant's dispute is refused.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.