Noosi v Exxaromatla and Others (JR291/2011) [2015] ZALCJHB 186 (25 June 2015)

Noosi v Exxaromatla and Others (JR291/2011) [2015] ZALCJHB 186 (25 June 2015)

The court found that the delay of 8 weeks and 4 days in filing the review application was excessive and the explanation provided by the applicant was inadequate, amounting to no explanation. The applicant failed to demonstrate that he was blameless for the delay, and the supporting affidavits from union officials were obtained only after the issue was raised by the respondent. The alleged computer crash was not substantiated by evidence or dates. Even if condonation were considered on the merits, the applicant failed to show that the Commissioner committed any reviewable irregularity. The Commissioner considered both procedural and substantive fairness, including the delay in disciplinary...

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 186
Parties
Applicant: Tsepang Pascalis Noosi; Respondent: Exxaromatla Coal; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Joseph Ngobeni
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 June 2015
Case Number
JR291/2011
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation
Outcome
Application for review and condonation dismissed.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Insubordination, Procedural Fairness, Reasonable Instruction
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Unfair Dismissal Insubordination Procedural Fairness Reasonable Instruction

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsepang Pascalis Noosi

Applicant

Exxaromatla Coal

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Joseph Ngobeni

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award dismissing the applicant's unfair dismissal claim was reviewable on grounds of misconduct or irregularity.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal of the applicant was substantively and procedurally fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay of 8 weeks and 4 days in filing the review application was excessive and the explanation provided by the applicant was inadequate, amounting to no explanation. The applicant failed to demonstrate that he was blameless for the delay, and the supporting affidavits from union officials were obtained only after the issue was raised by the respondent. The alleged computer crash was not substantiated by evidence or dates. Even if condonation were considered on the merits, the applicant failed to show that the Commissioner committed any reviewable irregularity. The Commissioner considered both procedural and substantive fairness, including the delay in disciplinary...

Court Disposition

Application for review and condonation dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant's application to review the arbitration award made by the third respondent under case number MP 4769-10 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.