Pheaga and Others v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J 2731/10) [2012] ZALCJHB 143 (2 February 2012)

Pheaga and Others v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J 2731/10) [2012] ZALCJHB 143 (2 February 2012)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide any adequate explanation for the delay between the outcome of the rescission application and the filing of the review application. Furthermore, the review application was unsupported by any affidavit setting out the grounds for review or prospects of success. The applicants did not address the settlement agreement in their founding papers and only raised it in reply, without substantiating their claim that the union official lacked authority to settle. The court concluded that the matter had been settled and that the applicants' papers did not establish any basis for the review. Accordingly, condonation for the late filing of the...

Citation
[2012] ZALCJHB 143
Parties
Applicant: Pheaga Victor & 36 Others; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (Johannesburg); Respondent: Thomas Nemushungwa (Commissioner); Respondent: Set Point Laboratories
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 February 2012
Case Number
J 2731/10
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review of Jurisdictional Ruling
Outcome
Application for condonation refused; review application not entertained.
Judges
Gush
Legal Topics
Condonation, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Review of Commissioner Award, Settlement Agreement, Late Filing
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Jurisdiction of Ccma Review of Commissioner Award Settlement Agreement Late Filing

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pheaga Victor & 36 Others

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (Johannesburg)

Respondent

Thomas Nemushungwa (Commissioner)

Respondent

Set Point Laboratories

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review of Jurisdictional Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants provided an adequate explanation for the late filing of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the review application is supported by sufficient evidence and affidavits.
  3. 3 Whether the settlement agreement precluded the applicants from pursuing the review.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide any adequate explanation for the delay between the outcome of the rescission application and the filing of the review application. Furthermore, the review application was unsupported by any affidavit setting out the grounds for review or prospects of success. The applicants did not address the settlement agreement in their founding papers and only raised it in reply, without substantiating their claim that the union official lacked authority to settle. The court concluded that the matter had been settled and that the applicants' papers did not establish any basis for the review. Accordingly, condonation for the late filing of the...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation refused; review application not entertained.

Orders

  • The applicants’ application for the late filing of the application for the review of the jurisdictional ruling issued by the second respondent is refused.