Mofokeng and Others v Rotek and Rochson SOC Ltd (JR264/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 421 (13 December 2018)

Mofokeng and Others v Rotek and Rochson SOC Ltd (JR264/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 421 (13 December 2018)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the review application, but accepted that the blame lay with their representatives rather than themselves. However, the prospects of success were deficient. The commissioner correctly applied the legal principles regarding section 186(1)(b) of the LRA, finding that the applicants did not have a reasonable expectation of renewal of their fixed term contracts. The operational requirements had changed, and the applicants were properly informed through meetings and written notices. The restructuring process was necessitated by Eskom’s budget reprioritisation, and the applicants’ contracts...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 421
Parties
Applicant: Andries Mofokeng and 4 Others; Respondent: Rotek and Roschon SOC Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Joyce Nkopane N.O
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 December 2018
Case Number
JR264/16
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Condonation and Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for condonation of the late filing of the review application is dismissed.
Judges
Nkutha-Nkontwana
Legal Topics
Condonation, Fixed Term Contracts, Section 186 1 B Dismissal, Operational Requirements, Expectation of Renewal
Labour Law Condonation Fixed Term Contracts Section 186 1 B Dismissal Operational Requirements Expectation of Renewal

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andries Mofokeng and 4 Others

Applicant

Rotek and Roschon SOC Ltd

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Joyce Nkopane N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Condonation and Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in filing the review application should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner committed a reviewable irregularity in finding that the failure to renew fixed term contracts did not constitute dismissal under section 186(1)(b) of the LRA.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants had a reasonable expectation of renewal of their fixed term contracts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the review application, but accepted that the blame lay with their representatives rather than themselves. However, the prospects of success were deficient. The commissioner correctly applied the legal principles regarding section 186(1)(b) of the LRA, finding that the applicants did not have a reasonable expectation of renewal of their fixed term contracts. The operational requirements had changed, and the applicants were properly informed through meetings and written notices. The restructuring process was necessitated by Eskom’s budget reprioritisation, and the applicants’ contracts...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation of the late filing of the review application is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for condonation of the late filing of the review application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.