Mould v Roopa NO and Others (JR822/01) [2002] ZALCJHB 15; [2003] 1 BLLR 38 (LC) (26 August 2002)

Mould v Roopa NO and Others (JR822/01) [2002] ZALCJHB 15; [2003] 1 BLLR 38 (LC) (26 August 2002)

The court held that the Commissioner correctly refused condonation for the late referral to arbitration. The certificate of non-resolution was properly issued upon signing and delivery, and stamping or filing was not a prerequisite. The applicant's delay was inadequately explained, and the prospects of success were not sufficiently pleaded. The Commissioner was entitled to accept the authority of the third respondent's deponent retrospectively, and the procedural objections raised by the applicant were either unfounded or did not result in prejudice. The applicant failed to provide a credible defence to the substantive allegations of misconduct, and the procedural grounds advanced were...

Citation
[2002] ZALCJHB 15
Parties
Applicant: Trevor Owen Mould; Respondent: Mr P Roopa N.O.; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration; Respondent: Lonmin Platinum Limited also known as Lonmin Platinum and/or Lonmin Platinum Mines
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 August 2002
Case Number
JR822/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Review of CCMA Condonation Ruling
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Pillay
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Referral, Prospects of Success, Procedural Fairness, Authority of Deponent
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Referral Prospects of Success Procedural Fairness Authority of Deponent

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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Owen Mould

Applicant

Mr P Roopa N.O.

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration

Respondent

Lonmin Platinum Limited also known as Lonmin Platinum and/or Lonmin Platinum Mines

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Review of CCMA Condonation Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner erred in refusing condonation for late referral to arbitration.
  2. 2 Whether the referral was in fact late and whether condonation was necessary.
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner relied on inadmissible or unauthorised evidence in assessing prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Commissioner correctly refused condonation for the late referral to arbitration. The certificate of non-resolution was properly issued upon signing and delivery, and stamping or filing was not a prerequisite. The applicant's delay was inadequately explained, and the prospects of success were not sufficiently pleaded. The Commissioner was entitled to accept the authority of the third respondent's deponent retrospectively, and the procedural objections raised by the applicant were either unfounded or did not result in prejudice. The applicant failed to provide a credible defence to the substantive allegations of misconduct, and the procedural grounds advanced were...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.