Maseko v CCMA and Others (JR347/02) [2003] ZALCJHB 19 (25 September 2003)

Maseko v CCMA and Others (JR347/02) [2003] ZALCJHB 19 (25 September 2003)

The court held that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and sufficient explanation for the delay in referring his dispute to the CCMA. The terse explanation 'due to appeal' was inadequate, especially since the referral occurred months after the internal appeal was finalized. The commissioner was under no obligation to convene a hearing to solicit further reasons when the applicant failed to provide them in his papers. The principles governing condonation applications place the onus squarely on the applicant to show good cause, and the applicant failed to discharge this burden. The commissioner’s decision to dismiss the condonation application was justified and not reviewable for...

Citation
[2003] ZALCJHB 19
Parties
Applicant: Vusi Ephraim Maseko; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Nkosinathi Maseko; Respondent: Telkom S.A. (Ltd)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 September 2003
Case Number
JR347/02
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Condonation Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
P Zilwa
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Referral, Review of Arbitration Award, Misconduct Dismissal, Internal Appeal, Onus of Explanation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Referral Review of Arbitration Award Misconduct Dismissal Internal Appeal Onus of Explanation

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vusi Ephraim Maseko

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Nkosinathi Maseko

Respondent

Telkom S.A. (Ltd)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Condonation Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA commissioner committed a reviewable irregularity by failing to convene a hearing before dismissing the applicant's condonation application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided sufficient explanation for the late referral to the CCMA.
  3. 3 Whether the prospects of success on the merits justified condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and sufficient explanation for the delay in referring his dispute to the CCMA. The terse explanation 'due to appeal' was inadequate, especially since the referral occurred months after the internal appeal was finalized. The commissioner was under no obligation to convene a hearing to solicit further reasons when the applicant failed to provide them in his papers. The principles governing condonation applications place the onus squarely on the applicant to show good cause, and the applicant failed to discharge this burden. The commissioner’s decision to dismiss the condonation application was justified and not reviewable for...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

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