NUFBSAW obo Motaung and Others v Pricewaterhousecoopers (JS2449-18) [2021] ZALCJHB 92 (1 June 2021)
The Court found that the applicants referred their dispute to the Labour Court outside the 90-day period prescribed by section 191(11)(a) of the Labour Relations Act. No application for condonation was made, and condonation was not granted. As a result, the Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] ZALCJHB 92
- Parties
- Applicant: NUFBSAW obo Anges Motaung; Applicant: Mapula Tlhabane; Applicant: Edwin Ngwasheng; Respondent: Pricewaterhousecoopers
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JS2449-18
- Procedural Posture
- Labour Court Application / Jurisdictional Point in Limine
- Outcome
- Application struck from the roll for lack of jurisdiction; costs awarded against the applicants.
- Judges
- F. Coetzee
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Condonation, Late Referral, Section 191 Lra
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
NUFBSAW obo Anges Motaung
Applicant
Mapula Tlhabane
Applicant
Edwin Ngwasheng
Applicant
Pricewaterhousecoopers
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Labour Court Application / Jurisdictional Point in Limine
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute in the absence of condonation for late referral.
- 2 Whether the referral was made within the prescribed 90-day period under section 191(11)(a) of the Labour Relations Act.
- 3 Whether the applicants' claims were settled by full and final settlement agreements.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the applicants referred their dispute to the Labour Court outside the 90-day period prescribed by section 191(11)(a) of the Labour Relations Act. No application for condonation was made, and condonation was not granted. As a result, the Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The Court did not consider the other points in limine raised by the respondent, as the jurisdictional defect was dispositive. The matter was struck from the roll and costs were awarded against the applicants.
Court Disposition
Application struck from the roll for lack of jurisdiction; costs awarded against the applicants.
Orders
- The Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the referral.
- The matter is struck from the roll.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case no: JS2449-18
In the matter between:
NUFBSAW obo ANGES MOTAUNG
First Applicant
MAPULA TLHABANE
Second Applicant
EDWIN NGWASHENG
Third Applicant
and
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS
Respondent
Heard: 1 June 2021
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email and release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10h00 on 1 June 2021.
Summary: Point in limine
JUDGMENT
COETZEE, AJ
[1] The respondent raised a number of points in limine. The respondent submits that the referral of the dispute to the Labour Court was done by way of notice of motion instead of a statement of claim; the referral was done outside of the 90-day period and in any event the three applicants settled any claims against the respondent in terms of full and final settlement agreements.
[2] It is necessary first to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
[3] The Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration issued a certificate of non-resolution on 7 May 2018.
[4] The applicants filed their application with the Registrar on 18 July 2018 without any proof of service on the respondent.
[5] The respondent first became aware of the referral on 7 November 2019 when it received an email from the applicants. The respondent does not rely upon email service as defective service, but submits that the referral, at best for the applicants, was only made on 7 November 2019, more than a year outside of the prescribed 90-day period.
[6] The applicants have not asked for condonation for the late referral.
[7] It is trite law that this Court does not have jurisdiction if there is non-compliance with section 191(11)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995[1].
[8] In the absence of an application for condonation and for condonation having been granted, the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter and therefore is not in a position to deal with the other points in limine.
Costs
[9] This is a jurisdictional matter where the respondent is successful. Having regard to the relevant factors, the applicants had no prospects of success, adopted the wrong process and even after having been alerted to the need for a condonation application, failed to apply for condonation. This is a matter where a costs order is fair to the respondent.
[10] The following order is hereby made:
Order
1. The Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the referral.
2. The matter is struck from the roll
3. The applicants are ordered jointly and severally to pay the respondent's costs, the one to pay the other to be absolved..
__________________
F. Coetzee
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
The matter has been determined on paper.
[1] See for instance NUM v Hernic Exploration (Pty) Ltd [2001] 2 BLLR 209 (LC)