Mdakane v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR2488/05) [2014] ZALCJHB 355 (11 September 2014)

Mdakane v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR2488/05) [2014] ZALCJHB 355 (11 September 2014)

The court found that the applicant's delay in both referring her dismissal dispute and filing the review application was substantial and primarily attributable to her own neglect. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on review. The second respondent's decision to dismiss the condonation application was reasonable and in accordance with the principles governing condonation under the Labour Relations Act. Accordingly, the application for review and condonation was dismissed.

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 355
Parties
Applicant: Catherine Mdakane; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Motlatjo J Ralefatane; Respondent: Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 September 2014
Case Number
JR2488/05
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Review and Condonation
Outcome
Application for review and condonation dismissed.
Judges
Manchu
Legal Topics
Condonation, Review of Arbitration Award, Late Filing, Dismissal for Misconduct
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Review of Arbitration Award Late Filing Dismissal for Misconduct

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

Catherine Mdakane

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Motlatjo J Ralefatane

Respondent

Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Review and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's delay in challenging her dismissal and filing the review application should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the decision of the second respondent to dismiss the applicant's condonation application was reviewable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's delay in both referring her dismissal dispute and filing the review application was substantial and primarily attributable to her own neglect. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on review. The second respondent's decision to dismiss the condonation application was reasonable and in accordance with the principles governing condonation under the Labour Relations Act. Accordingly, the application for review and condonation was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review and condonation dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The application for condonation is dismissed.