Mathobisa v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2461/07) [2017] ZALCJHB 250 (4 July 2017)

Mathobisa v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2461/07) [2017] ZALCJHB 250 (4 July 2017)

The applicant failed to comply with the requirements for service as set out in clause 14.1.5 of the Practice Manual. The affidavit confirming service did not state that the third respondent received the Rule 7A(8)(b) notice, nor did it provide telephonic confirmation of receipt as required. Without proper service, the application for review cannot proceed in the absence of the third respondent, and the matter is not properly before the court. The defect must be cured before the review application can be pursued.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 250
Parties
Applicant: Lentikile Nathaniel Mathobisa; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Cindy Dickens N.O; Respondent: Edcon Ltd t/a Jet Stores
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 July 2017
Case Number
JR2461/07
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Review and Removal From the Roll
Outcome
The matter was removed from the roll due to lack of proper service of the Rule 7A(8)(b) notice on the third respondent.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Review of Arbitration Award, Labour Court Rules, Practice Manual Compliance
Labour Law Civil Procedure Service of Process Review of Arbitration Award Labour Court Rules Practice Manual Compliance

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lentikile Nathaniel Mathobisa

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Cindy Dickens N.O

Respondent

Edcon Ltd t/a Jet Stores

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Review and Removal From the Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant proved proper service of the Rule 7A(8)(b) notice on the third respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the application for review can proceed in the absence of the third respondent without proof of proper service.
  3. 3 Whether non-compliance with clause 14.1.5 of the Practice Manual renders the application not properly before the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to comply with the requirements for service as set out in clause 14.1.5 of the Practice Manual. The affidavit confirming service did not state that the third respondent received the Rule 7A(8)(b) notice, nor did it provide telephonic confirmation of receipt as required. Without proper service, the application for review cannot proceed in the absence of the third respondent, and the matter is not properly before the court. The defect must be cured before the review application can be pursued.

Court Disposition

The matter was removed from the roll due to lack of proper service of the Rule 7A(8)(b) notice on the third respondent.

Orders

  • The matter is removed from the roll.