Mandlopha and Others v Dispute Resolution Centre and Another (JR1075/01) [2002] ZALC 123 (5 March 2002)

Mandlopha and Others v Dispute Resolution Centre and Another (JR1075/01) [2002] ZALC 123 (5 March 2002)

The court found that the Dispute Resolution Centre was also responsible for the delay in the referral of the dispute. In the interests of justice, the refusal to grant condonation was set aside. The matter was referred back to the Dispute Resolution Centre for arbitration, with condonation granted to the applicants. The court emphasized that justice would best be served by allowing the dispute to be arbitrated rather than penalizing the applicants for a delay to which the respondent contributed.

Citation
[2002] ZALC 123
Parties
Applicant: Mandla Mandlopha; Applicant: Mandla Shange; Applicant: Johannes Maponya; Applicant: Phillip Khomane; Applicant: South African Food, Retail and Agricultural Workers Union; Respondent: Dispute Resolution Centre; Respondent: Robert Bosch (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2002
Case Number
JR1075/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Review and Setting Aside of Condonation Ruling
Outcome
Application for review granted; ruling refusing condonation set aside; matter referred for arbitration.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Referral, Review of Arbitration Ruling
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Referral 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mandla Mandlopha

Applicant

Mandla Shange

Applicant

Johannes Maponya

Applicant

Phillip Khomane

Applicant

South African Food, Retail and Agricultural Workers Union

Applicant

Dispute Resolution Centre

Respondent

Robert Bosch (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Review and Setting Aside of Condonation Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to grant condonation for the late referral of the dispute was justified.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the Dispute Resolution Centre contributed to the delay.
  3. 3 Whether justice requires the setting aside of the ruling and referral for arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Dispute Resolution Centre was also responsible for the delay in the referral of the dispute. In the interests of justice, the refusal to grant condonation was set aside. The matter was referred back to the Dispute Resolution Centre for arbitration, with condonation granted to the applicants. The court emphasized that justice would best be served by allowing the dispute to be arbitrated rather than penalizing the applicants for a delay to which the respondent contributed.

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; ruling refusing condonation set aside; matter referred for arbitration.

Orders

  • The ruling under case number 06/656/2000 dated 26 July 2001 is set aside.
  • The matter is referred back to the first respondent for arbitration, with condonation granted.