Head of Department: Department of Education, Northern Cape v Bobbejaan and Others (J447/2007) [2021] ZALCJHB 250 (25 August 2021)
The court found that the matter could not proceed due to procedural irregularities in the court file, including issues with pagination, indexing, and uncertainty regarding the timing of service and filing. The parties agreed to remove the matter from the roll to address these deficiencies. The court ordered that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] ZALCJHB 250
- Parties
- Applicant: Head of Department: Department of Education, Northern Cape; Respondent: D Bobbejaan; Respondent: Education Labour Relations Council; Respondent: LH Christopher; Respondent: William Pescod Secondary School; Respondent: Governing Body of William Pescod Secondary School; Respondent: R Prinsloo
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- J447/2007
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Application for Removal From the Roll and Directions for Re Enrolment
- Outcome
- Matter removed from the roll by agreement; no cost order; directions issued for re-enrolment upon compliance.
- Judges
- F Coetzee
- Legal Topics
- Condonation for Late Filing, Review Application, Practice Manual Compliance, Prescription of Award
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Head of Department: Department of Education, Northern Cape
Applicant
D Bobbejaan
Respondent
Education Labour Relations Council
Respondent
LH Christopher
Respondent
William Pescod Secondary School
Respondent
Governing Body of William Pescod Secondary School
Respondent
R Prinsloo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Removal From the Roll and Directions for Re Enrolment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the review application was launched within the prescribed six-week period.
- 2 Whether the arbitration award has prescribed.
- 3 Whether the Practice Manual of 2013 applies to the filing and service of the transcript.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the matter could not proceed due to procedural irregularities in the court file, including issues with pagination, indexing, and uncertainty regarding the timing of service and filing. The parties agreed to remove the matter from the roll to address these deficiencies. The court ordered that the file be properly updated and that the issues identified be resolved before re-enrolment. No cost order was made.
Court Disposition
Matter removed from the roll by agreement; no cost order; directions issued for re-enrolment upon compliance.
Orders
- The matter is removed from the roll by agreement with no cost order.
- Before the matter can be re-enrolled, the parties must ensure the file is properly updated, paginated, and indexed, and that the procedural issues identified are addressed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
47 paragraphs
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
Not of interest to other judges
Case No: J 447/2007
In the matter between:
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION, NORTHERN CAPE Applicant
and
D BOBBEJAAN First
Respondent
EDUCATION LABOUR RELATIONS COUNCIL Second
Respondent
LH CHRISTOPHER Third
Respondent
WILLIAM PESCOD SECONDARY SCHOOL Fourth
Respondent
GOVERNING BODY OF WILLIAM PESCOD
SECONDARY SCHOOL Fifth
Respondent
R PRINSLOO Sixth
Respondent
Heard: 24 August 2021
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email and release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10h00 on 25 August 2021.
Summary: Condonation for late filing of heads
Application to dismiss the review application
Review application
Application in terms of S158(1)(c)
COETZEE AJ
[1] The applicant approaches this Court to review and set aside an arbitration award PSES 298-06/07 NC dated 11 December 2006.
[2] The third respondent applied to have the award made an order of Court and in addition for an order that the review is deemed to have been withdrawn, alternatively dismissing the review application because it was launched outside 6 weeks. The applications are opposed.
[3] The parties agreed to remove the matter from the roll as the Court file is not in order. Having spent time in unravelling the Court file, I recorded in the presence of the parties that there are matters to attend to before the matter may be re-enrolled:
3.1 The Court file must be updated and properly paginated and indexed according to the Practice Manual.
3.2 There is the matter of the record. It appears that the transcript may have been served after 60 days. Does the Practice Manual of 2013 apply?
3.3 Has the review been launched within 6 weeks? The service sheet shows service on some respondents on 1 March 2007 and others on 7 March 2007. The application was received by the registrar on 5 March 2007. It is stamped 5 March. Is there a review before Court?
3.4 If there is no review before Court, has the award prescribed?
Order
[4] I make the following order:
4.1 The matter is removed from the roll by agreement with no cost order.
4.2 Before the matter can be re-enrolled, the parties must see to it that the file is properly updated, paginated, and indexed and that the issues in paragraph 3 are addressed.
4.3 The parties may then jointly request the Registrar to re-enroll the matter.
F. Coetzee
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances
For the applicant: Ms
MP Olivier of the Office of the State Attorney
For the First Respondent: Mr Makinta of ES Makinta Attorneys