Morewa v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1160/02) [2003] ZALC 143 (7 February 2003)

Morewa v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1160/02) [2003] ZALC 143 (7 February 2003)

The court found that the applicant provided two conflicting versions regarding the delay in referral, one to the CCMA and another to the court, and failed to substantiate his claim of attorney involvement. The grounds for review were inadequate and did not justify interference with the commissioner's decision. The commissioner exercised discretion properly in refusing condonation for a referral that was seven and a half weeks late. The applicant's case was based on an untruthful version, warranting a costs order against him.

Citation
[2003] ZALC 143
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
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 Decision, Unfair Dismissal, Costs Order
Labour Law Condonation of Late Referral Review of Ccma Decision Unfair Dismissal 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 sufficient grounds for condonation of the late referral of his dismissal dispute to the CCMA.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner exercised discretion properly in refusing condonation.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conflicting explanations affect the merits of the review application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant provided two conflicting versions regarding the delay in referral, one to the CCMA and another to the court, and failed to substantiate his claim of attorney involvement. The grounds for review were inadequate and did not justify interference with the commissioner's decision. The commissioner exercised discretion properly in refusing condonation for a referral that was seven and a half weeks late. The applicant's case was based on an untruthful version, warranting 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.