Download PDF

South Africa Ruling

Labour Court Johannesburg

National Union of Mineworkers and Another v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 1557/2010) [2013] ZALCJHB 191 (12 August 2013)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal, as they only became aware of the judgment on 9 May 2013. The absence of opposition from the respondents was noted. The court was satisfied that there are prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding the denial of legal representation in arbitration proceedings. Accordingly, condonation was granted and leave to appeal was allowed.

Court disposition

Leave to appeal granted.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal is granted.
  • Leave to appeal is granted.

02

Material facts

Parties

National Union of Mineworkers

Applicant Counsel: E S Makinta Attorneys

Taole Elias Mohlasi

Applicant Counsel: E S Makinta Attorneys

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Diale Simon Ntsoane N.O.

Respondent

Two Rivers Platinum Mine

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Denying Legal Representation in Arbitration Proceedings.

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicants argued that they only became aware of the judgment on 9 May 2013 and provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. They submitted that there are prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding the denial of legal representation.
Respondent
The respondents did not file any opposing papers and made no submissions in relation to either the condonation application or the application for leave to appeal.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Labour Court practice and case law

    Condonation may be granted where the explanation for delay is reasonable and prospects of success exist.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal, as they only became aware of the judgment on 9 May 2013. The absence of opposition from the respondents was noted. The court was satisfied that there are prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding the denial of legal representation in arbitration proceedings. Accordingly, condonation was granted and leave to appeal was allowed.

Obiter and limits

  • The absence of opposition from the respondents was noted but did not affect the outcome of the condonation application.

Court disposition

Leave to appeal granted.

  • Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal is granted.
  • Leave to appeal is granted.

Source and reliance status

Labour Court Johannesburg

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Labour Court Johannesburg

Ruling

[2013] ZALCJHB 191

REPUBLIC

OF SOUTH AFRICA

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

JUDGMENT

Case no: JR 1557/2010

In the matter between:

NATIONAL UNION OF

MINEWORKERS .........................................................First Applicant

TAOLE ELIAS MOHLASI ...........................................................................Second Applicant

and

COMMISSION FOR

CONCILIATION

MEDIATION AND

ARBITRATION ................................................................First Respondent

DIALE SIMON NTSOANE N.O. ...............................................................Second Respondent

TWO RIVERS PLATINUM

MINE .................................................................Third Respondent

Decided: In Chambers

Delivered on: 12 August 2013

_______________

JUDGMENT: LEAVE TO

APPEAL

BOQWANA AJ

Introduction

This is an application for leave to appeal part of the Judgment I gave on 23 January 2013 where I found that the commissioner’s ruling denying the applicant legal representation must stand.

The applicant has filed an application for condonation of the late filing of the application for leave to appeal. The respondent filed no opposing papers and made no submissions in relation to both applications.

It appears from the applicants’ papers that they only became aware of the judgment on 09 May 2013. I am satisfied that the explanation given by the applicant is reasonable and am prepared to grant condonation. .

Having considered the application and submissions made on behalf of the applicants I am of the view there are prospects that another Court may come to a different conclusion to the one reached by myself.

I therefore make the following order:

Leave to appeal is granted.

____

Boqwana AJ

ACTING JUDGE OF THE

LABOUR COURT

FOR THE APPLICANTS: E S

MAKINTA ATTORNEYS

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.