Mohlasedi v CCMA (J959/01) [2001] ZALC 174 (16 October 2001)
- Citation
- [2001] ZALC 174
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court
- Panel
- A A Landman
- Case number
- J959/01
More details
- Court
- Labour Court
- Panel
- A A Landman
- Case number
- J959/01
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Labour Court found that the CCMA commissioner's ruling failed to properly consider and weigh all relevant circumstances required for a condonation application, as set out in Melane v Santam. The commissioner did not adequately apply his mind to the matter, and the reasons provided did not demonstrate a proper evaluation of the factors. As a result, the ruling was reviewed and set aside, and the matter was referred back to the CCMA for a fresh hearing before a different commissioner.
Court disposition
Ruling of the CCMA commissioner reviewed and set aside; matter referred back to the CCMA for rehearing before a different commissioner.
Orders
- The ruling of the CCMA commissioner is reviewed and set aside.
- The matter is referred back to the CCMA to hear an application for condonation before a commissioner other than the second respondent.
02
Material facts
Parties
Steffen Mohlasedi
ApplicantCCMA
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Application to Review and Set Aside CCMA Condonation Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the CCMA commissioner properly considered all relevant factors in refusing condonation for late referral.
- 02
Whether the applicant was afforded a fair opportunity to present his case, including calling and cross-examining witnesses.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that the CCMA commissioner's ruling was defective because he was not given a proper opportunity to deal with the matter, including calling witnesses and cross-examining the respondent's witnesses. He argued that the delay in referral was due to the union's promise to assist and ongoing negotiations. He further claimed discrimination based on disability and stated he was unemployed and without income, suffering prejudice as a result.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the delay in referral was excessive and not properly explained. The commissioner found that the reasons provided did not justify condonation and refused the application, focusing on the length of delay and the inadequacy of the explanation.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Melane v Santam Insurance Co Ltd 1962 (4) SA 531 (A)
In applications for condonation, all relevant circumstances must be weighed, including the length of delay, explanation, prospects of success, and prejudice.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Labour Court found that the CCMA commissioner's ruling failed to properly consider and weigh all relevant circumstances required for a condonation application, as set out in Melane v Santam. The commissioner did not adequately apply his mind to the matter, and the reasons provided did not demonstrate a proper evaluation of the factors. As a result, the ruling was reviewed and set aside, and the matter was referred back to the CCMA for a fresh hearing before a different commissioner.
Obiter and limits
- The applicant's claim of discrimination based on disability and his unemployment status were noted as relevant to the prejudice suffered.
- A proper condonation hearing requires that parties be afforded the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
Court disposition
Ruling of the CCMA commissioner reviewed and set aside; matter referred back to the CCMA for rehearing before a different commissioner.
- The ruling of the CCMA commissioner is reviewed and set aside.
- The matter is referred back to the CCMA to hear an application for condonation before a commissioner other than the second respondent.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court
Judgment
Sneller Verbatim/JduP
IN THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: J959/01
2001.10.16
In the matter between
STEFFEN MOHLASEDI Applicant
and
CCMA Respondent
______________
J U D G M E
N T
_______________
LANDMAN, J: This is an application to review and set aside a ruling of the second respondent, a Commissioner of the CCMA. It is brought by Mr Steffen Mohlasedi who complains that the ruling is defective. He says that he was not afforded a proper opportunity of dealing with the matter. He was not granted an opportunity to call witnesses and to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent company.
The condonation ruling deals with the length of delay and the explanation. The referral in this matter is over 18 months late. The reason given for the delay is that the Union promised to help the applicant. Negotiations took place between the parties.
Then under the heading of "Prospects of Success" the applicant claims that he was discriminated against because of his disability. Under the heading of "Prejudice" it is said that the applicant is unemployed and has no income. The Commissioner ruled that the delay in this matter is excessive and has not been properly explained. The application was refused. This ruling fails to take into account and to weigh up the circumstances which are relevant to an application for condonation as set out, inter alia, in Melane v Santam. It is not clear that the commissioner has applied his mind to the matter. If he did apply his mind, the reasons set out in the ruling do not show this. In the circumstances the ruling is reviewed and set aside. The matter is referred back to the CCMA to hear an application for condonation. This is to take place before a commissioner other than the second respondent. _______ A A Landman Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa ---ooo0ooo---
Then under the heading of "Prospects of Success" the applicant claims that he was discriminated against because of his disability. Under the heading of "Prejudice" it is said that the applicant is unemployed and has no income. The Commissioner ruled that the delay in this matter is excessive and has not been properly explained. The application was refused.
This ruling fails to take into account and to weigh up the circumstances which are relevant to an application for condonation as set out, inter alia, in Melane v Santam. It is not clear that the commissioner has applied his mind to the matter. If he did apply his mind, the reasons set out in the ruling do not show this. In the circumstances the ruling is reviewed and set aside. The matter is referred back to the CCMA to hear an application for condonation. This is to take place before a commissioner other than the second respondent.
_______
A A Landman
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
---ooo0ooo---
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.