Netshiavha v Camelot Body Corporate and Another (J 1457/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 318 (5 December 2013)

REPUBLIC

OF SOUTH AFRICA

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

JUDGMENT

Case no: J 1457/11

NOT

REPORTABLE

DATE: 05 DECEMBER 2013

In the matter between:

MASIA

DAVID NETSHIAVHA.....................................................................Applicant

And

CAMELOT BODY CORPORATE …...........................................First Respondent

PRICE & JOHNSTON ESTATE (PTY) LTD.......................Second Respondent

Heard: 4 July 2013

Delivered: 5 December 2013

WOODHOUSE AJ

[1] This is an application brought by the Applicant to join the Second Respondent.

Background

[2] The following facts are relevant to this application:

2.1 it is common cause that the Applicant was employed by Camelot Body Corporate;

2.2 he was dismissed on or about 22 June 2011;

2.3 the Applicant referred a dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (“the CCMA”);

2.3 the dispute was referred against a Respondent styled as Constantia Title Group. Constantia Title Group were the sectional title management company responsible for managing the financial affairs of the First Respondent;

2.4 on or about 15 July 2011, a Commissioner of the CCMA Mr T Serero issued a default award against Constantia Title Group;

2.5 the Applicant then filed this application on or about 29 July 2011;

2.6 for a variety of reasons, which need not be canvassed for the purposes of this application, the First Respondent only became aware of the application in this matter on or about 16 January 2012 when they received a notice of set down. The First Respondent then duly filed an answering affidavit and an application for condonation;

2.7 the matter was set down for hearing on 15 February 2012 before Bhoola J. She postponed the matter on the basis that it had become opposed and the Applicant was referred to the pro bono office;

2.8 the matter was again set down for hearing on 4 July 2013 before me.

Can the second respondent be joined?

[3] This case is a classic example of the sad reality that faces many relatively unskilled litigants who are confronted with launching

and/or attempting to ventilate their disputes before both the CCMA and this Court. The Applicant in this matter unwittingly and

innocently laboured under the impression that Constantia Title Group was his employer. This was not the case at all. His employer, Camelot Body Corporate, has never been a party to any proceedings before the CCMA.

[4] For the Applicant to be able to cite the First Respondent and join the Second Respondent, there must be a cause of action before this Court. It is common cause that there is no cause of action or dispute before this Court between the Applicant and/or the First Respondent. In order for a party to be joined to proceedings before this Court, it has to have a substantial interest in that proceeding or the outcome there. This is not the case in this matter.

[5] The Applicant, when asked by this Court why he had referred this matter, responded that he had been advised to do so by officials of the CCMA. Sadly, if this was the case, that advice was incorrect.

[6] In view of the above, I find that this Court has no jurisdiction or basis upon which to consider this application at all.

[7] In the circumstances, I make the following Order:

7.1 the Applicant’s application is dismissed;

7.2 there is no order as to costs.

Woodhouse AJ

Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE APPLICANT: On his own behalf

FOR THE RESPONDENT: Shaun Simpson of Simpson Attorneys