Ngwabe v Education Labour Relations Council and Others (JR1694/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 264 (16 July 2019)

Ngwabe v Education Labour Relations Council and Others (JR1694/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 264 (16 July 2019)

The applicant failed to establish that he was dismissed at the time of referral, as the evidence showed he remained employed under a fixed term contract until 30 June 2017 and was paid accordingly. The condonation ruling by the second respondent was reasonable and correct, as there were no prospects of success for the unfair dismissal dispute. The applicant did not articulate any reviewable irregularity or error in the condonation ruling, and his submissions were contradictory and unsupported. The review application was defective and had to be dismissed.

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 264
Parties
Applicant: Alson Themba Ngwabe; Respondent: Education Labour Relations Council; Respondent: Commissioner E.T Ngobeni N.O; Respondent: Gauteng Department of Education
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 July 2019
Case Number
JR1694/17
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Review and Set Aside Condonation Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Saunders
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Fixed Term Contract, Prospects of Success
Labour Law Condonation Unfair Dismissal Fixed Term Contract Prospects of Success

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alson Themba Ngwabe

Applicant

Education Labour Relations Council

Respondent

Commissioner E.T Ngobeni N.O

Respondent

Gauteng Department of Education

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Review and Set Aside Condonation Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was dismissed at the time of referral of the dispute.
  2. 2 Whether the condonation ruling by the second respondent was reviewable for irregularity.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established any grounds for review.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish that he was dismissed at the time of referral, as the evidence showed he remained employed under a fixed term contract until 30 June 2017 and was paid accordingly. The condonation ruling by the second respondent was reasonable and correct, as there were no prospects of success for the unfair dismissal dispute. The applicant did not articulate any reviewable irregularity or error in the condonation ruling, and his submissions were contradictory and unsupported. The review application was defective and had to be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.