Mhlanga v BMW SA (JR854/02) [2002] ZALCJHB 13 (15 October 2002)
- Citation
- [2002] ZALCJHB 13
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Revelas
- Case number
- JR854/02
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Revelas
- Case number
- JR854/02
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Labour Court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay in referring his dispute to the CCMA was unsatisfactory, as he failed to provide a credible reason for the lateness and merely blamed his union and the respondent. The commissioner exercised his discretion in refusing condonation, and there were no grounds for the court to interfere with that decision. The prospects of success were not sufficiently established to warrant condonation. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed.
Court disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
D C Mhlanga
ApplicantBMW SA
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the CCMA commissioner's refusal to grant condonation for late referral was reviewable.
- 02
Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in referral.
- 03
Whether the prospects of success justified interference with the commissioner's discretion.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the delay in referring the dispute to the CCMA was due to the actions of his union and the respondent, and that he had prospects of success in the underlying dispute. He contended that the commissioner's refusal to grant condonation was unreasonable and should be set aside.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the applicant's explanation for the delay was inadequate and did not justify condonation. The respondent argued that the commissioner exercised his discretion properly and that there were no grounds for the Labour Court to interfere with the decision.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
Commissioners of the CCMA must deal with matters expeditiously and exercise discretion in granting condonation for late referrals.
- 02
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
A court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by a commissioner unless it is shown that the discretion was not exercised judicially or on proper grounds.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Labour Court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay in referring his dispute to the CCMA was unsatisfactory, as he failed to provide a credible reason for the lateness and merely blamed his union and the respondent. The commissioner exercised his discretion in refusing condonation, and there were no grounds for the court to interfere with that decision. The prospects of success were not sufficiently established to warrant condonation. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- Commissioners are required to act expeditiously in accordance with the Labour Relations Act.
- The exercise of discretion by commissioners should not be lightly interfered with by the court.
Court disposition
Application dismissed.
- The application for review is dismissed.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Judgment
[COMMENT1] Sneller Verbatim/HDJ
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN
CASE NO: JR854/02
DATE: 2002-10-15
In the matter between
D C MHLANGA Applicant
and
BMW SA Respondent
J
U D G M E N T
REVELAS J:
1. This is an application in terms of section 168, where the applicant seeks to review and set aside a condonation ruling made by the second respondent, who found that the application for condonation brought at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, had no merits.
2. The delay in question was 6½ months and was received on 18 June 2001 and was referred to the CCMA on 8 February 2002. The commissioner who heard the application, found that the explanation provided by the applicant for the lateness of his referral is unacceptable in that he blames his union and the respondent, whose appearance was delayed between the date of the receipt and 10 December 2001, which provides no explanation for the delay.
3. The second respondent also found that the applicant did not show consent and that the delay finding was unacceptable. The second respondent found, and also in so far as the prospects of success were concerned, that it only seems good in the absence of any counter argument.
4. The commissioners of the CCMA are enjoined do deal with matters expeditiously in terms of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. In granting condonation they exercise a discretion. On the grounds provided for by the applicant in this matter there are no grounds upon which I am persuaded to interfere in the exercise of the discretion of the second respondent.
5. In the circumstances the application is dismissed.
[COMMENT1]BEGIN DEUR 'N "HEADER" TE MAAK
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.