Lebusa and Others v Kloof Gold Mine (J1497/98) [1999] ZALC 126 (18 August 1999)

Lebusa and Others v Kloof Gold Mine (J1497/98) [1999] ZALC 126 (18 August 1999)

The court held that the first applicant, Mr Kgotso Lebusa, is not a current employee and therefore cannot represent further applicants under section 161 of the Labour Relations Act, whether in its amended or unamended form. The authority conferred by confirmatory affidavits is insufficient, as it does not cure the statutory exclusion of a dismissed person from representing others. Applicants who did not refer their disputes for conciliation are not properly before the court, and the absence of conciliation cannot be condoned except in cases of urgency, which is not present here. The court found that only Mr Lebusa, provided he referred his dispute for conciliation, is properly before the...

Citation
[1999] ZALC 126
Parties
Applicant: Kgotso Lebusa and Others; Respondent: Kloof Gold Mine
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 August 1999
Case Number
J1497/98
Procedural Posture
Labour Application / Points in Limine
Outcome
Only Mr Kgotso Lebusa is properly before the court; all other applicants are excluded at this stage due to lack of locus standi and failure to comply with conciliation requirements.
Judges
Ngwenya
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Conciliation Requirement, Collective Agreement, Trade Union Membership, Representation Before Labour Court
Labour Law Locus Standi Conciliation Requirement Collective Agreement Trade Union Membership Representation Before 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kgotso Lebusa and Others

Applicant

Kloof Gold Mine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Application / Points in Limine

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first applicant, as a dismissed ex-employee, has locus standi to represent further applicants before the Labour Court.
  2. 2 Whether applicants who did not refer their dispute for conciliation are properly before the court.
  3. 3 Whether confirmatory affidavits signed by applicants constitute proper authority or referral to the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the first applicant, Mr Kgotso Lebusa, is not a current employee and therefore cannot represent further applicants under section 161 of the Labour Relations Act, whether in its amended or unamended form. The authority conferred by confirmatory affidavits is insufficient, as it does not cure the statutory exclusion of a dismissed person from representing others. Applicants who did not refer their disputes for conciliation are not properly before the court, and the absence of conciliation cannot be condoned except in cases of urgency, which is not present here. The court found that only Mr Lebusa, provided he referred his dispute for conciliation, is properly before the...

Court Disposition

Only Mr Kgotso Lebusa is properly before the court; all other applicants are excluded at this stage due to lack of locus standi and failure to comply with conciliation requirements.

Orders

  • The matter will proceed on the merits only in respect of Mr Kgotso Lebusa, provided he referred his dispute for conciliation.
  • Further applicants are excluded from these proceedings unless and until they cure the shortcomings identified by the court.