Matolo v Commissioner For Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JS1070/19) [2024] ZALCJHB 276 (25 July 2024)

Matolo v Commissioner For Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JS1070/19) [2024] ZALCJHB 276 (25 July 2024)

The court found that both review applications under case numbers JS1070/19 and JR2901/19 had lapsed and been archived in terms of the Practice Manual due to the applicant's excessive and unexplained delay in prosecuting the review and failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 7A (6) and (8). The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZALCJHB 276
Parties
Applicant: Simon Mote Matolo; Respondent: Commissioner for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Marikana Housing Development; Respondent: Rede Consultants (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Comperio Consulting
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 July 2024
Case Number
JS1070/19
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review Application and Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
The review applications under case numbers JS1070/19 and JR2901/19 are struck from the roll and the applicant is ordered to pay the Third Respondent's costs.
Judges
Makhubele AJ
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Practice Manual Archiving, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Rule 7a Non Compliance, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Practice Manual Archiving Jurisdiction of Labour Court Rule 7a Non Compliance Costs Award

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Mote Matolo

Applicant

Commissioner for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Marikana Housing Development

Respondent

Rede Consultants (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Comperio Consulting

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review Application and Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the review applications under case numbers JS1070/19 and JR2901/19 have lapsed and been archived in terms of the Practice Manual.
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to hear the review application after archiving.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant complied with Rule 7A (6) and (8) of the Labour Court Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both review applications under case numbers JS1070/19 and JR2901/19 had lapsed and been archived in terms of the Practice Manual due to the applicant's excessive and unexplained delay in prosecuting the review and failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 7A (6) and (8). The applicant conceded non-compliance and requested removal from the roll, but the court determined that striking the matter from the roll was the appropriate order. The court further held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the review application as a result of the archiving event. Given the applicant's conduct, including persistent non-compliance and delay, the court exercised its...

Court Disposition

The review applications under case numbers JS1070/19 and JR2901/19 are struck from the roll and the applicant is ordered to pay the Third Respondent's costs.

Orders

  • The review applications under case numbers JS1070/19 and JR2901/19 have lapsed and been archived in terms of the Practice Manual.
  • This Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the review application.