Pekeur obo Willemse v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C554/2022) [2025] ZALCCT 29 (15 May 2025)

Pekeur obo Willemse v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C554/2022) [2025] ZALCCT 29 (15 May 2025)

The court found that there was no evidence that the purported applicant had authorised the launching of the review application. Furthermore, the purported representative was not authorised to institute review proceedings either in her own capacity, as an advice office representative, or on behalf of the applicant....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZALCCT 29
Parties
Applicant: Wendy Pekeur o.b.o Elsie Willemse; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Ilse de Vlieger-Seynhaeve; Respondent: Samgro
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Case Number
C554/2022
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The review application is declared null and void and is struck from the roll. Costs are reserved.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Review Application, Authority to Institute Proceedings, Nullity of Application
Labour Law Review Application Authority to Institute Proceedings Nullity of Application

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wendy Pekeur o.b.o Elsie Willemse

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Ilse de Vlieger-Seynhaeve

Respondent

Samgro

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the purported applicant authorised the launching of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the purported representative was authorised to institute review proceedings on behalf of the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether a valid review application was before the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no evidence that the purported applicant had authorised the launching of the review application. Furthermore, the purported representative was not authorised to institute review proceedings either in her own capacity, as an advice office representative, or on behalf of the applicant. As a result, there was no valid review application before the court, and the application was a nullity. The application was accordingly struck from the roll.

Court Disposition

The review application is declared null and void and is struck from the roll. Costs are reserved.

Orders

  • The review application is null and void and is struck from the roll.
  • Costs are reserved.