Maseko v Skye Energy Logistics ta Skye Logistics (JS500/24) [2025] ZALCJHB 263 (7 May 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZALCJHB 263
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- M T M Phehane
- Case number
- JS500/24
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- M T M Phehane
- Case number
- JS500/24
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The applicant referred his dismissal dispute to the Labour Court outside the prescribed 90-day period following the CCMA's certificate of outcome. No application for condonation accompanied the late referral. In the absence of condonation, the Labour Court is deprived of jurisdiction to entertain the matter, including the application for default judgment. The applicant's claims for setting aside the retrenchment, reinstatement, compensation, and nullification of the mutual separation agreement cannot be considered.
Court disposition
Matter struck off the roll for want of jurisdiction.
Orders
- The matter is struck off the roll for want of jurisdiction.
02
Material facts
Parties
Sipho Jimmy Maseko
ApplicantSkye Energy Logistics t/a Skye Logistics
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment; Jurisdictional Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the applicant's referral given its late filing.
- 02
Whether the absence of a condonation application for late referral precludes the granting of default judgment.
- 03
Whether the retrenchment and mutual separation agreement can be set aside in these circumstances.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that his dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair, alleging non-compliance by the employer with sections 189 and 189A of the Labour Relations Act. He seeks the setting aside of his retrenchment, reinstatement, compensation for loss of income, and the nullification of a mutual separation agreement. The applicant relies on a CCMA certificate of outcome indicating the dispute remains unresolved.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not participate in the proceedings and no argument was advanced, as the matter was heard as a default judgment application.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 191(5)(b)(ii) read with section 191(11)(a) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
A dispute relating to dismissal for operational requirements must be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication within 90 days after the CCMA has certified that the dispute remains unresolved.
- 02
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
Where a referral is made out of time and is not accompanied by an application for condonation, the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The applicant referred his dismissal dispute to the Labour Court outside the prescribed 90-day period following the CCMA's certificate of outcome. No application for condonation accompanied the late referral. In the absence of condonation, the Labour Court is deprived of jurisdiction to entertain the matter, including the application for default judgment. The applicant's claims for setting aside the retrenchment, reinstatement, compensation, and nullification of the mutual separation agreement cannot be considered.
Obiter and limits
- Applicants must ensure strict compliance with statutory timeframes when referring disputes to the Labour Court.
- Failure to apply for condonation in cases of late referral will result in the matter being struck off the roll for want of jurisdiction.
Court disposition
Matter struck off the roll for want of jurisdiction.
- The matter is struck off the roll for want of jurisdiction.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Judgment
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: JS500/24
In the matter between:
SIPHO
JIMMY
MASEKO
Applicant
and
SKYE ENERGY LOGISTICS t/a SKYE LOGISTICS
Respondent
Decided: In Chambers
Delivered: 7 May 2025 (This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by email, publication on the Labour Court website and release to SAFLII. The date and time for handing-down is deemed to be 10h00 on 7 May 2025.)
JUDGMENT
PHEHANE, J
[1] This is a default judgment application in which the plaintiff seeks the following remedy:
1. The setting aside of his retrenchment;
2. Reinstatement;
3. Compensation for loss of income; and
4. The setting aside of a mutual separation agreement concluded between him and his employer.[1]
[2] The plaintiff pleads that his dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair as the employer failed to comply with the provisions of sections 189 and 189A of the Labour Relations Act[2] (LRA).[3] Attached as annexure E to the statement of claim is a certificate of outcome by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) issued on 11 April 2024, recording that the plaintiff’s referred dismissal dispute in terms of section 189 of the LRA remains unresolved.
[3] In terms of the provisions of section 191(5)(b)(ii) read with section 191(11)(a) of the LRA, a dispute relating to dismissal for operational requirements must be referred to this Court for adjudication within 90 days after the CCMA has certified that the
dispute remains unresolved.
[4] The plaintiff referred his dispute to this Court on 4 September 2024, which is out of time. The referral is not accompanied by an application for condonation for its late filing.
[5] In the premises, this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate this referral and the default judgment application.
[6] In the premises, the following order is made:
Order
1. The matter is struck off the roll for want of jurisdiction.
M. T. M. Phehane
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
[1] Pleadings, statement of claim at para 7 on p 6.
[2] Act 66 of 1995, as amended.
[3] Pleadings, statement of claim at para 5 on pp 3 to 5.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.