Kubeka v GPSSBC and Others (JR1645/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 306 (16 August 2016)

Kubeka v GPSSBC and Others (JR1645/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 306 (16 August 2016)

The court found that the Second Respondent correctly accepted the delay was not substantial but failed to provide sufficient reasons for finding the explanation unsatisfactory. However, even if the explanation for the delay were accepted, the Applicant had no reasonable prospects of success on the merits of his unfair dismissal claim. The Applicant was dismissed for dishonesty and had a criminal record, which statutorily disqualified him from employment with the Third Respondent. The grounds for review did not justify interference with the condonation ruling, as they did not establish a case under section 158(1)(g) of the LRA. The Commissioner’s decision that the Applicant had not shown...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 306
Parties
Applicant: Lucas S Kubeka; Respondent: GPSSBC; Respondent: Mr Martin Sambo; Respondent: Department of Gauteng Community Safety
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 August 2016
Case Number
JR1645/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Condonation Ruling
Outcome
Application to review and set aside the condonation ruling is dismissed.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Prospects of Success, Delay in Referral
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Unfair Dismissal Prospects of Success Delay in Referral

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucas S Kubeka

Applicant

GPSSBC

Respondent

Mr Martin Sambo

Respondent

Department of Gauteng Community Safety

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Condonation Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second Respondent's refusal to grant condonation for late referral to arbitration was reasonable and justified.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in referring his unfair dismissal dispute.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant had reasonable prospects of success on the merits of his unfair dismissal claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Second Respondent correctly accepted the delay was not substantial but failed to provide sufficient reasons for finding the explanation unsatisfactory. However, even if the explanation for the delay were accepted, the Applicant had no reasonable prospects of success on the merits of his unfair dismissal claim. The Applicant was dismissed for dishonesty and had a criminal record, which statutorily disqualified him from employment with the Third Respondent. The grounds for review did not justify interference with the condonation ruling, as they did not establish a case under section 158(1)(g) of the LRA. The Commissioner’s decision that the Applicant had not shown...

Court Disposition

Application to review and set aside the condonation ruling is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the ruling issued by the Second Respondent under case number GPBC2356/2014 is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.