Mathiva and Others v Public Health and Social Development Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR804/2016) [2018] ZALCJHB 315 (3 October 2018)

Mathiva and Others v Public Health and Social Development Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR804/2016) [2018] ZALCJHB 315 (3 October 2018)

The court found that the applicants filed their review application within the prescribed time and that the period between April and September 2016 did not constitute an inordinate delay. The third respondent failed to prove that the delay was excessive or that the procedural defects warranted dismissal. The Practice Manual does not mandate dismissal for late filing alone; instead, it provides an opportunity for applicants to show cause. The third respondent's approach of seeking dismissal without filing an answering affidavit was incorrect. Consequently, the application to dismiss the review was refused.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 315
Parties
Applicant: Mathivha AJ and 5 Others; Respondent: Public Health and Social Development Sectoral Bargaining Council; Respondent: Mphaphuli Joseph; Respondent: Department of Health, Limpopo
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 October 2018
Case Number
JR804/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Dismiss Review for Delay
Outcome
Application to dismiss the review application refused.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Review Application Delay, Practice Manual Clause 11 2 3, Arbitration Award Challenge
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review Application Delay Practice Manual Clause 11 2 3 Arbitration Award Challenge

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathivha AJ and 5 Others

Applicant

Public Health and Social Development Sectoral Bargaining Council

Respondent

Mphaphuli Joseph

Respondent

Department of Health, Limpopo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Dismiss Review for Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defects in the review application justify its dismissal due to alleged inordinate delay in prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the arbitration record or other procedural defects constitute grounds for dismissal of the review application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants filed their review application within the prescribed time and that the period between April and September 2016 did not constitute an inordinate delay. The third respondent failed to prove that the delay was excessive or that the procedural defects warranted dismissal. The Practice Manual does not mandate dismissal for late filing alone; instead, it provides an opportunity for applicants to show cause. The third respondent's approach of seeking dismissal without filing an answering affidavit was incorrect. Consequently, the application to dismiss the review was refused.

Court Disposition

Application to dismiss the review application refused.

Orders

  • The application to dismiss the applicant’s review application is refused.