Ledwaba v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1458/11) [2014] ZALCJHB 192; JR1458/11 (29 May 2014)

Ledwaba v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1458/11) [2014] ZALCJHB 192; JR1458/11 (29 May 2014)

The applicant failed to set out any reviewable grounds in his founding affidavit or supplementary affidavit, as required by law. The only grounds advanced appeared in his replying affidavit, which cannot be considered. The commissioner properly considered the degree of lateness, the lack of compelling reasons for the delay, and the prospects of success. The ruling dismissing condonation was not unreasonable and does not warrant interference by the court. The application for review is accordingly dismissed.

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 192
Parties
Applicant: Machoga Reginald Ledwaba; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Simon Rantho; Respondent: Eskom Customer Services
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2014
Case Number
JR1458/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Ponelis
Legal Topics
Condonation of Late Referral, Review of Arbitration Award, Prospects of Success, Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Condonation of Late Referral Review of Arbitration Award Prospects of Success Unfair Dismissal

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Machoga Reginald Ledwaba

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Simon Rantho

Respondent

Eskom Customer Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established sufficient grounds for condonation of the late referral of his unfair dismissal dispute.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioners ruling dismissing the condonation application was reviewable under section 158(1)(g) of the LRA.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to set out any reviewable grounds in his founding affidavit or supplementary affidavit, as required by law. The only grounds advanced appeared in his replying affidavit, which cannot be considered. The commissioner properly considered the degree of lateness, the lack of compelling reasons for the delay, and the prospects of success. The ruling dismissing condonation was not unreasonable and does not warrant interference by the court. The application for review is accordingly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.