NUMSA and Another v Element Six Production (Pty) Ltd (JS 1020/2015) [2023] ZALCJHB 47 (9 March 2023)

NUMSA and Another v Element Six Production (Pty) Ltd (JS 1020/2015) [2023] ZALCJHB 47 (9 March 2023)

The court found that the delay in prosecuting the matter was material and that the applicants failed to provide a compelling, convincing, and comprehensive explanation covering every period of the delay, particularly the period between March 2018 and June 2019. The explanation for the subsequent delay was also found to be inadequate, as it was unreasonable for the applicants to take almost a year to provide instructions to their attorney. The court held that the applicants did not act with the required diligence and failed to discharge the onus to show good cause for the retrieval of the referral from the archives. In line with established legal principles, the court found that where the...

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 47
Parties
Applicant: NUMSA; Applicant: Makoti and 94 Others; Respondent: Element Six Production (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 March 2023
Case Number
JS 1020/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Retrieve Referral From Archives
Outcome
Application for retrieval of referral from the archives dismissed; costs awarded against the first applicant.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Retrieval From Archives, Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Practice Manual, Expeditious Dispute Resolution
Labour Law Civil Procedure Retrieval From Archives Condonation Unfair Dismissal Practice Manual Expeditious Dispute Resolution

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUMSA

Applicant

Makoti and 94 Others

Applicant

Element Six Production (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Retrieve Referral From Archives

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for the retrieval of their referral from the archives.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for the delay in prosecuting the matter is reasonable and covers the entire period of default.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' prospects of success are material in light of the delay and explanation tendered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in prosecuting the matter was material and that the applicants failed to provide a compelling, convincing, and comprehensive explanation covering every period of the delay, particularly the period between March 2018 and June 2019. The explanation for the subsequent delay was also found to be inadequate, as it was unreasonable for the applicants to take almost a year to provide instructions to their attorney. The court held that the applicants did not act with the required diligence and failed to discharge the onus to show good cause for the retrieval of the referral from the archives. In line with established legal principles, the court found that where the...

Court Disposition

Application for retrieval of referral from the archives dismissed; costs awarded against the first applicant.

Orders

  • The application for retrieving the applicants' referral from the archives is dismissed.
  • The first applicant is to pay the respondent's costs.