Mabaso v Motor Industry Bargaining Council and Others (JR2589/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 195 (22 May 2018)

Mabaso v Motor Industry Bargaining Council and Others (JR2589/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 195 (22 May 2018)

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay in referring his dispute was seriously incomplete and unsupported by evidence before the arbitrator. The applicant failed to provide details regarding his alleged referral to the wrong email address and did not explain the role of his legal representatives during the period of delay. Furthermore, the applicant did not dispute the respondent's allegations regarding the merits of his dismissal, nor did he file a replying affidavit to contest claims that he conceded the allegations at the disciplinary hearing. The arbitrator's findings that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and that the prospects of success were poor...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 195
Parties
Applicant: Derick Mabaso; Respondent: Motor Industry Bargaining Council; Respondent: Commissioner Y Nagdee (N.O.); Respondent: Lombard Tyres (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 May 2018
Case Number
JR2589/17
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Condonation Ruling
Outcome
Review application dismissed.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Referral, Prospects of Success, Disciplinary Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Referral Prospects of Success Disciplinary Procedure

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

Derick Mabaso

Applicant

Motor Industry Bargaining Council

Respondent

Commissioner Y Nagdee (N.O.)

Respondent

Lombard Tyres (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Condonation Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's condonation ruling was unreasonable on the evidence before him.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in referring the dispute.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's prospects of success were adequately considered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay in referring his dispute was seriously incomplete and unsupported by evidence before the arbitrator. The applicant failed to provide details regarding his alleged referral to the wrong email address and did not explain the role of his legal representatives during the period of delay. Furthermore, the applicant did not dispute the respondent's allegations regarding the merits of his dismissal, nor did he file a replying affidavit to contest claims that he conceded the allegations at the disciplinary hearing. The arbitrator's findings that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and that the prospects of success were poor...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed.

Orders

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