Kometsi v Commission for Conciliation, Meditation and Arbitration and Others (JR2321/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 308 (17 August 2016)

Kometsi v Commission for Conciliation, Meditation and Arbitration and Others (JR2321/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 308 (17 August 2016)

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the time limits and procedural requirements set out in the Labour Court Rules and Practice Manual. The applicant did not seek condonation for the late filing of the review application, late upliftment and delivery of the record, or late answering affidavit....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 308
Parties
Applicant: Thaanyane Peter Kometsi; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner F. van der Merwe; Respondent: South Deep Gold Mine (A Division of Gold Fields Ltd)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 August 2016
Case Number
JR2321/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Rule 11 Application to Deem Review Withdrawn
Outcome
The review application is deemed withdrawn in terms of clause 11.2.3 of the Practice Manual. No order as to costs.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Practice Manual Compliance, Condonation, Withdrawal of Application
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Practice Manual Compliance Condonation Withdrawal of Application

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thaanyane Peter Kometsi

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner F. van der Merwe

Respondent

South Deep Gold Mine (A Division of Gold Fields Ltd)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Rule 11 Application to Deem Review Withdrawn

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's review application should be deemed withdrawn due to failure to comply with time limits and procedural requirements.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's answering affidavit to the Rule 11 application is properly before the court without condonation for late filing.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant took adequate steps to prosecute the review application after filing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the time limits and procedural requirements set out in the Labour Court Rules and Practice Manual. The applicant did not seek condonation for the late filing of the review application, late upliftment and delivery of the record, or late answering affidavit. The answering papers were not properly before the court, and the applicant took no further steps to prosecute the review application. In terms of clause 11.2.3 of the Practice Manual, the review application is deemed withdrawn when the applicant fails to file the record within the prescribed period and does not obtain an extension or condonation. The court held that there was...

Court Disposition

The review application is deemed withdrawn in terms of clause 11.2.3 of the Practice Manual. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The review application instituted by the applicant under the present case number is deemed to have been withdrawn in terms of clause 11.2.3 of the Practice Manual of this Court.
  • There is no order as to costs.