Maila and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others (JR1716/13) [2019] ZALCJHB 327 (22 November 2019)

Maila and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others (JR1716/13) [2019] ZALCJHB 327 (22 November 2019)

The court held that Commissioner Rabyanyana did not err in dismissing the condonation application, as her hands were tied by the earlier ruling of Commissioner Hlatshwayo. The applicants failed to seek clarity or variation of the first ruling, which was ambiguous but dispositive. The doctrine of functus officio applied, and the applicants should have invoked section 144 of the LRA if they were aggrieved. There was no basis for the court to interfere with the second commissioner's ruling, and the review application was dismissed.

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 327
Parties
Applicant: T H Maila and 3 Others; Respondent: City of Johannesburg; Respondent: Commissioner MG Rabyanyana N. O; Respondent: South African Local Government Bargaining Council
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 November 2019
Case Number
JR1716/13
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Review application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Condonation, Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council, Functus Officio, Review of Arbitration Ruling
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Jurisdiction of Bargaining Council Functus Officio Review of Arbitration 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T H Maila and 3 Others

Applicant

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Commissioner MG Rabyanyana N. O

Respondent

South African Local Government Bargaining Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Commissioner Rabyanyana's ruling dismissing the condonation application was reviewable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were entitled to have their condonation application considered on the merits.
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of functus officio applied to the second commissioner after the first ruling.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Commissioner Rabyanyana did not err in dismissing the condonation application, as her hands were tied by the earlier ruling of Commissioner Hlatshwayo. The applicants failed to seek clarity or variation of the first ruling, which was ambiguous but dispositive. The doctrine of functus officio applied, and the applicants should have invoked section 144 of the LRA if they were aggrieved. There was no basis for the court to interfere with the second commissioner's ruling, and the review application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the condonation ruling dated 3 June 2013 issued by the Second Respondent under case number JMD 041301 is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.