Mokitimi v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Another (J2934/12) [2016] ZALCJHB 385 (12 July 2016)

Mokitimi v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Another (J2934/12) [2016] ZALCJHB 385 (12 July 2016)

The court found that the CCMA had already exercised its powers by determining that the dispute was one of unfair discrimination and should be referred to the Labour Court. The applicant had not pursued the unfair discrimination claim in the Labour Court and instead sought to compel the CCMA to issue an outcome on a condonation application related to an unfair labour practice dispute. The court held that there was no constructive refusal by the CCMA, as the CCMA had considered the request for arbitration and determined it was not arbitrable. The applicant failed to make out a case for review or for the court to compel the CCMA to act further. The application was dismissed, and costs were...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 385
Parties
Applicant: Tiisetso William Mokitimi; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Sedibeng District Municipality
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 July 2016
Case Number
J2934/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mothibi
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Labour Practice, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Review of Administrative Action
Labour Law Condonation Unfair Labour Practice Jurisdiction of Ccma Review of Administrative Action

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tiisetso William Mokitimi

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Sedibeng District Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA's refusal to issue an award on the applicant's condonation application constitutes a constructive refusal subject to review.
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Court can compel the CCMA to issue an outcome on the condonation application.
  3. 3 Whether the dispute was properly before the Labour Court for arbitration or review.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the CCMA had already exercised its powers by determining that the dispute was one of unfair discrimination and should be referred to the Labour Court. The applicant had not pursued the unfair discrimination claim in the Labour Court and instead sought to compel the CCMA to issue an outcome on a condonation application related to an unfair labour practice dispute. The court held that there was no constructive refusal by the CCMA, as the CCMA had considered the request for arbitration and determined it was not arbitrable. The applicant failed to make out a case for review or for the court to compel the CCMA to act further. The application was dismissed, and costs were...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs of the application.