Moses v Roopa NO and Others (J1808/00) [2000] ZALC 113; [2001] 2 BLLR 174 (LC) (6 October 2000)

Moses v Roopa NO and Others (J1808/00) [2000] ZALC 113; [2001] 2 BLLR 174 (LC) (6 October 2000)

The Commissioner failed to properly consider the condonation application by not critically examining the degree of lateness or the reasons for it, and by relying solely on the Second Respondent's jurisdictional objection without affording the applicant an opportunity to respond to factual allegations. The Commissioner did not comply with the rules of natural justice, as he did not convene a hearing or call for a replying affidavit to resolve the factual dispute. The conclusion reached was not rationally connected to the material before him. The degree of lateness was insignificant, and the reasons for it were not challenged. The balance of convenience and prejudice favoured the applicant....

Citation
[2000] ZALC 113
Parties
Applicant: Charles Moses; Respondent: P Roopa NO; Respondent: Safika Holdings (Pty) Limited; Respondent: The Director of the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration NO
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 October 2000
Case Number
J1808/00
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Review of Condonation Ruling
Outcome
Application for review and setting aside of the Commissioner's ruling granted with costs; matter remitted for reconsideration by another Commissioner.
Judges
B M Jammy
Legal Topics
Condonation of Late Referral, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Unfair Dismissal, Natural Justice, Review of Commissioner Decisions
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation of Late Referral Jurisdiction of Ccma Unfair Dismissal Natural Justice Review of Commissioner Decisions

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Moses

Applicant

P Roopa NO

Respondent

Safika Holdings (Pty) Limited

Respondent

The Director of the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Review of Condonation Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner properly considered the application for condonation of the late referral for conciliation.
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner complied with the rules of natural justice in deciding the condonation application.
  3. 3 Whether the factual dispute regarding the existence of an employment relationship was relevant to the condonation application.

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner failed to properly consider the condonation application by not critically examining the degree of lateness or the reasons for it, and by relying solely on the Second Respondent's jurisdictional objection without affording the applicant an opportunity to respond to factual allegations. The Commissioner did not comply with the rules of natural justice, as he did not convene a hearing or call for a replying affidavit to resolve the factual dispute. The conclusion reached was not rationally connected to the material before him. The degree of lateness was insignificant, and the reasons for it were not challenged. The balance of convenience and prejudice favoured the applicant....

Court Disposition

Application for review and setting aside of the Commissioner's ruling granted with costs; matter remitted for reconsideration by another Commissioner.

Orders

  • The ruling by the First Respondent dismissing the applicant's condonation application is reviewed and set aside.
  • The condonation application is to revert to the Third Respondent for consideration and determination by a Commissioner other than the First Respondent, with specific regard to the substance of this judgment.