Mofokeng v Telkom SA SOC Ltd (JS388/18) [2019] ZALCJHB 12 (22 January 2019)

Mofokeng v Telkom SA SOC Ltd (JS388/18) [2019] ZALCJHB 12 (22 January 2019)

The Court found that the applicant's statement of claim was filed within the prescribed 90-day period by faxing it to the Court and serving it on the respondent on 10 April 2015, which was 89 days after the certificate of outcome. The subsequent lodging of the original document was slightly late, but this did not render the referral out of time. The respondent's argument that the referral was late was incorrect, and its stance that it need not apply for condonation for its own late response was unfounded. The Court granted condonation for the minor delay in lodging the original statement of claim and ordered the respondent to pay costs, noting that the respondent had delayed its response...

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 12
Parties
Applicant: Sibusiso Mofokeng; Respondent: Telkom SA SOC Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 January 2019
Case Number
JS388/18
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Opposed Application for Condonation Prior to Trial
Outcome
Condonation granted for the applicant's late lodgment of the original statement of claim. Respondent ordered to pay costs. Matter to be set down for trial.
Judges
Rabkin-Naicker
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Operational Requirements, Late Filing, Jurisdiction, Practice Manual
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Unfair Dismissal Operational Requirements Late Filing Jurisdiction Practice Manual

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sibusiso Mofokeng

Applicant

Telkom SA SOC Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Opposed Application for Condonation Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the applicant's statement of claim filed out of time, requiring condonation?
  2. 2 Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute given the timing of the referral?
  3. 3 Is the respondent required to apply for condonation for its late response to the statement of claim?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant's statement of claim was filed within the prescribed 90-day period by faxing it to the Court and serving it on the respondent on 10 April 2015, which was 89 days after the certificate of outcome. The subsequent lodging of the original document was slightly late, but this did not render the referral out of time. The respondent's argument that the referral was late was incorrect, and its stance that it need not apply for condonation for its own late response was unfounded. The Court granted condonation for the minor delay in lodging the original statement of claim and ordered the respondent to pay costs, noting that the respondent had delayed its response...

Court Disposition

Condonation granted for the applicant's late lodgment of the original statement of claim. Respondent ordered to pay costs. Matter to be set down for trial.

Orders

  • Condonation is granted.
  • The respondent is to pay the costs.