Mphahlele v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR811/15) [2025] ZALCJHB 272 (24 June 2025)

Mphahlele v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR811/15) [2025] ZALCJHB 272 (24 June 2025)

The Court found that the applicant's review application had lapsed due to his failure to comply with the Practice Manual and Rules of the Labour Court, specifically the requirements for filing the record and necessary papers within prescribed timeframes. The applicant did not take reasonable steps to secure the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZALCJHB 272
Parties
Applicant: Tabako Ephraim Mphahlele; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Bella Goldman N. O.; Respondent: South African Airways (SOC) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 June 2025
Case Number
JR811/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Reasons for Order Following Dismissal of Remittal Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
M T M Phehane
Legal Topics
Review Application, Remittal of Dispute, Practice Manual Compliance, Arbitration Record, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review Application Remittal of Dispute Practice Manual Compliance Arbitration Record Costs Order

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tabako Ephraim Mphahlele

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Bella Goldman N. O.

Respondent

South African Airways (SOC) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Reasons for Order Following Dismissal of Remittal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's review application had lapsed due to non-compliance with the Practice Manual and Rules of the Labour Court.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to an order remitting the dispute to the CCMA for a hearing de novo.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to an order compelling the CCMA to file the correct electronic record.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant's review application had lapsed due to his failure to comply with the Practice Manual and Rules of the Labour Court, specifically the requirements for filing the record and necessary papers within prescribed timeframes. The applicant did not take reasonable steps to secure the correct record, nor did he seek consent or extension from the third respondent or the Judge President as required. The Court held that there was no live review application before it, rendering the remittal application incompetent. Furthermore, the applicant's conduct in misleading the Court about the status of the review application was unacceptable and contributed to the decision...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

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