Morerwa v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1160/02) [2003] ZALCJHB 5 (7 February 2003)

Morerwa v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1160/02) [2003] ZALCJHB 5 (7 February 2003)

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.

Citation
[2003] ZALCJHB 5
Parties
Applicant: S Morerwa; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: L H Cellier N.O.; Respondent: Mr Price, a division of Mr Price Group Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 February 2003
Case Number
JR1160/02
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Condonation of Late Referral, Review of Ccma Ruling, Dismissal Dispute, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation of Late Referral Review of Ccma Ruling Dismissal Dispute Costs Order

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

S Morerwa

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

L H Cellier N.O.

Respondent

Mr Price, a division of Mr Price Group Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a sufficient explanation for the late referral of his dismissal dispute to the CCMA.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner exercised his discretion properly in refusing condonation.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conflicting explanations undermine his case for review.

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.

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.