Masilela v CCMA and Others (JR2350/11) [2016] ZALCJHB 132 (30 March 2016)

Masilela v CCMA and Others (JR2350/11) [2016] ZALCJHB 132 (30 March 2016)

The court found that the applicant's review application was filed late and that the delay was egregious and unjustified, especially after being warned and given opportunities to file condonation. The refusal to postpone the arbitration became academic after the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which compromised the dispute. The applicant's allegations of undue influence by the commissioner were unsupported by evidence and contradicted his own affidavits. The CCMA lacked jurisdiction to set aside the settlement agreement, and any challenge to its validity should have been brought under contract law in the Labour Court or civil courts. Both review applications were misconceived...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 132
Parties
Applicant: Samuel Khaya Masilela; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Joseph Ngobeni N.O.; Respondent: Mark Hawyes N.O.; Respondent: Eskom Holdings SOC Limited
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2016
Case Number
JR2350/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Both the condonation application and the review applications are dismissed.
Judges
Whitcher
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Filing, Settlement Agreement, Ccma Jurisdiction, Review of Arbitration Ruling, Duress and Undue Influence
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation for Late Filing Settlement Agreement Ccma Jurisdiction Review of Arbitration Ruling Duress and Undue Influence

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Khaya Masilela

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Joseph Ngobeni N.O.

Respondent

Mark Hawyes N.O.

Respondent

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's late review application should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the CCMA commissioner erred in refusing postponement of arbitration proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to entertain the dismissal dispute after a settlement agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's review application was filed late and that the delay was egregious and unjustified, especially after being warned and given opportunities to file condonation. The refusal to postpone the arbitration became academic after the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which compromised the dispute. The applicant's allegations of undue influence by the commissioner were unsupported by evidence and contradicted his own affidavits. The CCMA lacked jurisdiction to set aside the settlement agreement, and any challenge to its validity should have been brought under contract law in the Labour Court or civil courts. Both review applications were misconceived...

Court Disposition

Both the condonation application and the review applications are dismissed.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed with no order as to costs.