JB Marks Local Municipality v SALGBC and Others (JR543/2018) [2021] ZALCJHB 252 (25 August 2021)

JB Marks Local Municipality v SALGBC and Others (JR543/2018) [2021] ZALCJHB 252 (25 August 2021)

The Court found that the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory time periods set out in the Practice Manual, specifically by not delivering the record within 60 days and not prosecuting the review application within six months. The Practice Manual is binding and its provisions are not merely guidelines. The delivery of the record outside the prescribed period does not constitute a valid step to prevent archiving or dismissal. There is no requirement for the respondent to apply for archiving; the Registrar is obliged to archive the file upon non-compliance. As a result, the review application is deemed withdrawn and the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter. No order as...

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 252
Parties
Applicant: JB Marks Local Municipality; Respondent: SALGBC; Respondent: Marleze Blignaut Swanepoel; Respondent: CH Stolz
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 August 2021
Case Number
JR543/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review Application; Determination of Jurisdiction and Compliance With Practice Manual
Outcome
Review application struck from the roll as deemed withdrawn in terms of clause 11.2.2 of the Practice Manual.
Judges
F. Coetzee
Legal Topics
Practice Manual Compliance, Review Application Struck Off, Archiving of Files, Condonation, Jurisdiction of Labour Court
Labour Law Civil Procedure Practice Manual Compliance Review Application Struck Off Archiving of Files Condonation Jurisdiction of Labour Court

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JB Marks Local Municipality

Applicant

SALGBC

Respondent

Marleze Blignaut Swanepoel

Respondent

CH Stolz

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review Application; Determination of Jurisdiction and Compliance With Practice Manual

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the review application should be dismissed or deemed withdrawn due to non-compliance with the Practice Manual clauses 11.2.2 and 16.1.
  2. 2 Whether the delivery of the record outside the prescribed period constitutes a step that prevents archiving or dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the review application in light of procedural non-compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory time periods set out in the Practice Manual, specifically by not delivering the record within 60 days and not prosecuting the review application within six months. The Practice Manual is binding and its provisions are not merely guidelines. The delivery of the record outside the prescribed period does not constitute a valid step to prevent archiving or dismissal. There is no requirement for the respondent to apply for archiving; the Registrar is obliged to archive the file upon non-compliance. As a result, the review application is deemed withdrawn and the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter. No order as...

Court Disposition

Review application struck from the roll as deemed withdrawn in terms of clause 11.2.2 of the Practice Manual.

Orders

  • The review application is struck from the roll as it is deemed withdrawn in terms of clause 11.2.2.
  • There is no order as to costs.