Lala and Others v Mediclinic Bloemfontein and Others (C 912/2018) [2020] ZALCCT 14 (22 June 2020)

Lala and Others v Mediclinic Bloemfontein and Others (C 912/2018) [2020] ZALCCT 14 (22 June 2020)

The court found that the commissioner was never seized with the rescission application at the time he varied his ruling, as there was no evidence that the rescission application had been placed before him. The variation of the ruling was a correction of a patent error, which the commissioner was empowered to make under section 144(b) of the Labour Relations Act. There was no requirement to canvass the parties before correcting such an obvious typographical mistake, and the correction merely gave effect to the true meaning of the original ruling. The review application was therefore without merit and could not succeed.

Citation
[2020] ZALCCT 14
Parties
Applicant: Thabiso Jeremia Lala & Others; Respondent: Mediclinic Bloemfontein; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner: Masilo Koenane (n.o.)
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 June 2020
Case Number
C 912/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Application to Review and Set Aside a CCMA Ruling, Determined on Papers and Heads of Argument.
Outcome
Review application dismissed.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Referral, Rescission of Arbitration Award, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Variation of Ruling
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation for Late Referral Rescission of Arbitration Award Jurisdiction of Ccma Variation of Ruling

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thabiso Jeremia Lala & Others

Applicant

Mediclinic Bloemfontein

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner: Masilo Koenane (n.o.)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Application to Review and Set Aside a CCMA Ruling, Determined on Papers and Heads of Argument.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner was entitled to vary his own ruling without inviting representations from the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner was seized with the rescission application at the time of varying the ruling.
  3. 3 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute after the condonation ruling was made and not rescinded.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner was never seized with the rescission application at the time he varied his ruling, as there was no evidence that the rescission application had been placed before him. The variation of the ruling was a correction of a patent error, which the commissioner was empowered to make under section 144(b) of the Labour Relations Act. There was no requirement to canvass the parties before correcting such an obvious typographical mistake, and the correction merely gave effect to the true meaning of the original ruling. The review application was therefore without merit and could not succeed.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.