Morerwa v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1160/02) [2003] ZALCJHB 5 (7 February 2003)
- Citation
- [2003] ZALCJHB 5
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- E Revelas
- Case number
- JR1160/02
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- E Revelas
- Case number
- JR1160/02
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant provided two conflicting explanations for the late referral: one to the CCMA and another to the court. He failed to provide any proof or factual basis for his claim that attorneys were involved. The grounds for review lacked substance and resembled an appeal rather than a proper review. The commissioner exercised his discretion correctly in refusing condonation for the excessive delay. The applicant's untruthful conduct justified a costs order against him.
Court disposition
Application for review dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.
Orders
- The application for review is dismissed.
- The applicant is to pay the third respondent's costs for this application.
02
Material facts
Parties
S Morerwa
ApplicantCommission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
RespondentL H Cellier N.O.
RespondentMr Price, a division of Mr Price Group Ltd
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant provided a sufficient explanation for the late referral of his dismissal dispute to the CCMA.
- 02
Whether the commissioner exercised his discretion properly in refusing condonation.
- 03
Whether the applicant's conflicting explanations undermine his case for review.
- 04
Whether a costs order should be made against the applicant for presenting an untruthful version.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that he was unaware of the 30-day referral period and lacked funds to send the referral to the CCMA. In his grounds for review, he introduced new evidence claiming that he had handed the matter to his attorneys, who were allegedly negligent in processing it. However, he provided no proof that an attorney acted on his behalf and did not state any supporting facts in his review grounds.
- Respondent
- The respondents contended that the applicant's referral was significantly late and that his explanations were inconsistent and untruthful. They argued that the commissioner exercised his discretion correctly in refusing condonation and that the applicant's conduct warranted a costs order against him.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995
Commissioners of the CCMA must deal with matters expeditiously and may refuse condonation for excessive delays if discretion is properly exercised.
- 02
National Union of Mineworkers v Council for Mineral Technology 1999 (3) SA 674 (SCA)
A party seeking condonation must provide a truthful and cogent explanation for delay; conflicting versions undermine credibility.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant provided two conflicting explanations for the late referral: one to the CCMA and another to the court. He failed to provide any proof or factual basis for his claim that attorneys were involved. The grounds for review lacked substance and resembled an appeal rather than a proper review. The commissioner exercised his discretion correctly in refusing condonation for the excessive delay. The applicant's untruthful conduct justified a costs order against him.
Obiter and limits
- Commissioners are expected to act swiftly and decisively in matters of condonation to ensure the efficient functioning of the CCMA.
- Applicants must be truthful and consistent in their explanations to the court; failure to do so may result in adverse cost consequences.
Court disposition
Application for review dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.
- The application for review is dismissed.
- The applicant is to pay the third respondent's costs for this application.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
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 Johannesburg
Judgment
[COMMENT1] Sneller Verbatim/HVDM
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN
CASE NO: JR1160/02
DATE: 2003-02-07
In the matter between
S MORERWA Applicant
and
THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND
ARBITRATION
1st Respondent
L H CELLIER N.O. 2nd Respondent
MR PRICE, A DIVISION OF MR PRICE
GROUP LTD 3rd Respondent
J
U D G M E N T
REVELAS J:
1. This is an application in which the applicant applied to review and set aside a ruling made by the second respondent, a commissioner of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (“the CCMA”), refusing to condone the late referral of the applicant’s dismissal dispute to the CCMA.
2. The applicant's referral was seven and a half weeks out of time. The explanation given by the applicant to the commissioner at the time, when he brought the application, where the respondent was not present, was that he did not know that there was a 30 day time period and furthermore that he did not have money to send a fax or referral to the CCMA.
3. In his grounds of review, which lacks any averments which would support a review application, and read more like an appeal, he leads new evidence stating that he handed the matter over to his attorneys who was then lax in processing the matter. He could provide no proof that an attorney was acting on his behalf, neith has he stated any facts to that effect in his grounds of review.
4. I have to consider that the applicant has given two conflicting versions. One to the court and another to the CCMA. In one of the applications he has been untruthful. He has put forward no cogent grounds upon which I could come to the conclusion that the ruling should be interfered with. Commissioners of the CCMA are enjoined to deal with matters expeditiously. Delays as excessive as this one may be refused by a commissioner if he or she has exercised his or her discretion properly, which the arbitrator appears to have done in this matter.
5. Accordingly the application for review is dismissed.
6. In so far as costs is concerned the applicant's case was based on an untruthful version and on that basis I agree with counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent that I should make a cost order against the applicant.
7. In the circumstances the order reads as follows:
1. The application for review is dismissed.
2. The applicant is to pay the third respondent's costs for this application.
____
E. Revelas
PRESIDING OFFICER: REVELAS J
ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
[COMMENT1]BEGIN DEUR 'N "HEADER" TE MAAK
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.