Ntloko v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and others (P 805/01) [2002] ZALC 68; [2002] 12 BLLR 1206 (LC); (2002) 23 ILJ 2292 (LC) (21 August 2002)

Ntloko v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and others (P 805/01) [2002] ZALC 68; [2002] 12 BLLR 1206 (LC); (2002) 23 ILJ 2292 (LC) (21 August 2002)

The court found that the applicant had no prospects of success on the merits, as he admitted to making an illegal telephone connection and receiving illegal payment. The procedural arguments were insufficient to justify condonation, and no reasonable arbitrator would award compensation in these circumstances. The applicant’s attorney failed to exercise reasonable care, misled the applicant, and did not conduct himself with due diligence. The court held that both the applicant and his attorney were responsible for the poor state of the case and that costs could be awarded jointly and severally against them under section 162 of the LRA.

Citation
[2002] ZALC 68
Parties
Applicant: Akhona Ntloko; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Telkom SA; Respondent: Vuyani Klaas N O; Respondent: D Williams
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 August 2002
Case Number
P 805/01
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed. Costs awarded jointly and severally against applicant and attorney.
Judges
Pillay
Legal Topics
Condonation of Late Referral, Review of Arbitration Award, Costs De Bonis Propriis, Attorney Professional Conduct
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation of Late Referral Review of Arbitration Award Costs De Bonis Propriis Attorney Professional Conduct

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

Akhona Ntloko

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Telkom SA

Respondent

Vuyani Klaas N O

Respondent

D Williams

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner erred in refusing condonation for late referral of the dispute for conciliation.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had prospects of success on the merits or procedure.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded jointly and severally against the applicant and his attorney.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had no prospects of success on the merits, as he admitted to making an illegal telephone connection and receiving illegal payment. The procedural arguments were insufficient to justify condonation, and no reasonable arbitrator would award compensation in these circumstances. The applicant’s attorney failed to exercise reasonable care, misled the applicant, and did not conduct himself with due diligence. The court held that both the applicant and his attorney were responsible for the poor state of the case and that costs could be awarded jointly and severally against them under section 162 of the LRA.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed. Costs awarded jointly and severally against applicant and attorney.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The applicant's attorney is denied all his costs otherwise payable by his client.