Mkhize v Myhill NO and Others (JR 333/06) [2009] ZALC 210 (22 December 2009)

Mkhize v Myhill NO and Others (JR 333/06) [2009] ZALC 210 (22 December 2009)

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the statutory time limit for filing a rescission application and did not apply for condonation. Even if condonation were granted, the applicant did not demonstrate good prospects of success, as the evidence indicated he was not employed by the third respondent. The commissioner’s refusal to rescind the dismissal was justified, and the applicant did not establish grounds for review under section 144 of the Labour Relations Act. The application was accordingly dismissed.

Citation
[2009] ZALC 210
Parties
Applicant: Raymond Lucky Mkhize; Respondent: E L E Myhill N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Datona Crane Services CC
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 December 2009
Case Number
JR 333/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Rescission of Award, Condonation, Employment Relationship, Review of Ccma Ruling
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Award Condonation Employment Relationship Review of Ccma Ruling

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond Lucky Mkhize

Applicant

E L E Myhill N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Datona Crane Services CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner erred in refusing rescission of the dismissal ruling.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant complied with the time limits for filing a rescission application.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided good cause for his default and prospects of success in the main case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the statutory time limit for filing a rescission application and did not apply for condonation. Even if condonation were granted, the applicant did not demonstrate good prospects of success, as the evidence indicated he was not employed by the third respondent. The commissioner’s refusal to rescind the dismissal was justified, and the applicant did not establish grounds for review under section 144 of the Labour Relations Act. The application was accordingly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant’s application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.