Mofokeng v Metal And Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR1016/10) [2011] ZALCJHB 266 (19 July 2011)

Mofokeng v Metal And Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR1016/10) [2011] ZALCJHB 266 (19 July 2011)

The applicant failed to set out any grounds for review in his papers and did not challenge the manner in which the second respondent conducted the proceedings. The second respondent properly considered all relevant factors in the condonation application, including the degree of lateness, reasons for lateness,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] ZALCJHB 266
Parties
Applicant: Xolane Elliot Mofokeng; Respondent: Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council; Respondent: Commissioner Daisy Manzana; Respondent: Hawker Siddley Transformers
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 July 2011
Case Number
JR1016/10
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Review application dismissed.
Judges
Masher
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award

Source-derived case record

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

Xolane Elliot Mofokeng

Applicant

Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council

Respondent

Commissioner Daisy Manzana

Respondent

Hawker Siddley Transformers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the condonation ruling by the second respondent should be reviewed and set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established grounds for review under the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the decision to dismiss the condonation application was reasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to set out any grounds for review in his papers and did not challenge the manner in which the second respondent conducted the proceedings. The second respondent properly considered all relevant factors in the condonation application, including the degree of lateness, reasons for lateness, prospects of success, and prejudice. The decision to dismiss the condonation application was reasonable and not one that a reasonable decision maker could not reach. There is no basis for interference with the condonation ruling under the Labour Relations Act.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.