Hanekom v CCMA and Others (C867/13) [2016] ZALCCT 25 (1 August 2016)

Hanekom v CCMA and Others (C867/13) [2016] ZALCCT 25 (1 August 2016)

The application for leave to appeal was filed outside the prescribed time period and no condonation was sought, depriving the court of jurisdiction to entertain the application. Even if condonation were granted, the submissions and transcription were also filed late without condonation. The decisions challenged by the applicant—refusal of representation by a trade union and refusal to postpone—were not appealable as they were not definitive of the parties' rights nor did they dispose of substantial relief. These decisions were discretionary, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the court exercised its discretion improperly or unfairly. The applicant did not provide evidence of...

Citation
[2016] ZALCCT 25
Parties
Applicant: Hendrik Hanekom; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Commissioner F A Crafford; Respondent: Applethwaite Farm (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 August 2016
Case Number
C867/13
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Re Enrolment Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Trade Union Representation, Condonation, Postponement, Withdrawal of Application
Labour Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Trade Union Representation Condonation Postponement Withdrawal of Application

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hendrik Hanekom

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Commissioner F A Crafford

Respondent

Applethwaite Farm (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Re Enrolment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal was filed timeously and whether condonation was sought for late filing.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to representation by a trade union not properly placed on record.
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to postpone the hearing was appealable and justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was filed outside the prescribed time period and no condonation was sought, depriving the court of jurisdiction to entertain the application. Even if condonation were granted, the submissions and transcription were also filed late without condonation. The decisions challenged by the applicant—refusal of representation by a trade union and refusal to postpone—were not appealable as they were not definitive of the parties' rights nor did they dispose of substantial relief. These decisions were discretionary, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the court exercised its discretion improperly or unfairly. The applicant did not provide evidence of...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.