Molobola and Others v Hawyes and Others (JR 2166/08) [2013] ZALCJHB 131 (4 July 2013)

Molobola and Others v Hawyes and Others (JR 2166/08) [2013] ZALCJHB 131 (4 July 2013)

The court found that the applicants took wholly insufficient steps in prosecuting the review application between October 2008 and July 2009, and again from July/August 2009 to October 2010. The delays were not adequately explained nor were they solely attributable to the respondents or the CCMA. The written reasons for the original order had fully considered the applicants' actions and the relevant periods, and the court had properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the review application. There was no reasonable possibility that another court would reach a different conclusion based on the largely undisputed facts. The grounds for leave to appeal were therefore unsustainable.

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 131
Parties
Applicant: Malobola, Nomsa; Applicant: Seema, Tabeta; Applicant: Ntuli, Pretty; Respondent: Commissioner MA Hawyes; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd (Eastlynn)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 July 2013
Case Number
JR2166/08
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused.
Judges
Van Voore
Legal Topics
Review Application Dismissal, Delay in Prosecution, Leave to Appeal, Exercise of Discretion
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review Application Dismissal Delay in Prosecution Leave to Appeal Exercise of Discretion

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malobola, Nomsa

Applicant

Seema, Tabeta

Applicant

Ntuli, Pretty

Applicant

Commissioner MA Hawyes

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd (Eastlynn)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants took sufficient steps to prosecute the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in prosecution was attributable solely to the applicants or also to the respondents and CCMA.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court exercised its discretion properly in dismissing the review application for delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants took wholly insufficient steps in prosecuting the review application between October 2008 and July 2009, and again from July/August 2009 to October 2010. The delays were not adequately explained nor were they solely attributable to the respondents or the CCMA. The written reasons for the original order had fully considered the applicants' actions and the relevant periods, and the court had properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the review application. There was no reasonable possibility that another court would reach a different conclusion based on the largely undisputed facts. The grounds for leave to appeal were therefore unsustainable.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • There is no order as to costs.