Mkhize v Myhill NO and Others (JR333/06) [2009] ZALCJHB 62 (22 December 2009)

Mkhize v Myhill NO and Others (JR333/06) [2009] ZALCJHB 62 (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 seek condonation for the delay. Furthermore, the applicant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for his default nor demonstrate any prospects of success in the main case. The commissioner’s refusal to rescind the dismissal ruling was therefore justified, and the review application was dismissed.

Citation
[2009] ZALCJHB 62
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 Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 December 2009
Case Number
JR333/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Rescission of Award, Condonation, Default Judgment, Employment Relationship
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Award Condonation Default Judgment Employment Relationship

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 provided sufficient explanation for his default.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant had 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 seek condonation for the delay. Furthermore, the applicant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for his default nor demonstrate any prospects of success in the main case. The commissioner’s refusal to rescind the dismissal ruling was therefore justified, and the review application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

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