Maseko v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 347/02) [2003] ZALC 177; [2003] 11 BLLR 1148 (LC) (25 September 2003)

Maseko v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 347/02) [2003] ZALC 177; [2003] 11 BLLR 1148 (LC) (25 September 2003)

The court held that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in referring his dismissal dispute to the CCMA, despite being advised of his rights and represented by a union official. The commissioner was not obliged to convene a hearing to solicit further reasons when the applicant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] ZALC 177
Parties
Applicant: Vusi Ephraim Maseko; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Nkosinathi Maseko; Respondent: Telkom S.A. (Ltd)
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 September 2003
Case Number
JR 347/02
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Condonation Refusal
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
P Zilwa
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Referral, Review of Arbitration Award, Onus of Proof, Individual Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Referral Review of Arbitration Award Onus of Proof Individual Dismissal

Source-derived case record

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

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Nkosinathi Maseko

Respondent

Telkom S.A. (Ltd)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Condonation Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA commissioner erred in refusing condonation for the applicant's late referral of his dismissal dispute.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner was obliged to convene a hearing to solicit further reasons for the delay before ruling on condonation.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided sufficient explanation and prospects of success to justify condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in referring his dismissal dispute to the CCMA, despite being advised of his rights and represented by a union official. The commissioner was not obliged to convene a hearing to solicit further reasons when the applicant's condonation application was deficient. The onus to provide reasons for the delay lies squarely with the applicant, and his failure to do so justified the refusal of condonation. The court found no irregularity in the commissioner's conduct and no merit in the applicant's review application. The application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

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