Ngqondi v Fouche and Others (PR02/13) [2015] ZALCPE 72 (8 March 2015)

Ngqondi v Fouche and Others (PR02/13) [2015] ZALCPE 72 (8 March 2015)

The applicant's delay of 505 days in filing the review application was excessive and not reasonably explained. Her attorney's error in interpreting jurisdiction did not justify the delay, especially as five months elapsed after the jurisdictional objection was raised before corrective action was taken. The applicant failed to establish prospects of success, as she was properly notified of the arbitration date and venue, agreed to the third venue, and unilaterally chose to leave without assessing its suitability. The Bargaining Council Rules do not require 20 days' notice for a change of venue, only for the arbitration date. The arbitrator was empowered to proceed in the applicant's...

Citation
[2015] ZALCPE 72
Parties
Applicant: Edith Kholeka Ngqondi; Respondent: Marion Fouche; Respondent: Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: South African Local Government Bargaining Council
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 March 2015
Case Number
PR02/13
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Condonation and Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Condonation for late filing of the review application is refused. The review application is dismissed.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Review, Jurisdiction, Delay in Filing
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Review Jurisdiction Delay in Filing

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edith Kholeka Ngqondi

Applicant

Marion Fouche

Respondent

Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

South African Local Government Bargaining Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Condonation and Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the excessive delay in filing the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated prospects of success in the review application.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator was empowered to dismiss the matter in the applicant's absence under the Bargaining Council Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's delay of 505 days in filing the review application was excessive and not reasonably explained. Her attorney's error in interpreting jurisdiction did not justify the delay, especially as five months elapsed after the jurisdictional objection was raised before corrective action was taken. The applicant failed to establish prospects of success, as she was properly notified of the arbitration date and venue, agreed to the third venue, and unilaterally chose to leave without assessing its suitability. The Bargaining Council Rules do not require 20 days' notice for a change of venue, only for the arbitration date. The arbitrator was empowered to proceed in the applicant's...

Court Disposition

Condonation for late filing of the review application is refused. The review application is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to strike out paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 26 and 27 of the replying affidavit is dismissed.
  • The application for condonation of the late filing of the review application is dismissed.