Pillay v Ethekwini Municipality: Communications Department and Others (D 96/22) [2025] ZALCD 1 (20 January 2025)
The applicant failed to comply with the Practice Manual requirements by not filing the written notice to the registrar within 12 months of launching the review application and allowing the matter to remain stagnant for more than 6 months. The Practice Manual is clear that such non-compliance results in the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] ZALCD 1
- Parties
- Applicant: Mogamberry Maduray Pillay; Respondent: Ethekwini Municipality: Communications Department; Respondent: Keshree Kemi N.O.; Respondent: SALGBC
- Court
- Labour Court Durban
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- D 96/22
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Application to Review Condonation Ruling; Jurisdictional Challenge
- Outcome
- Review application struck from the roll for lack of jurisdiction.
- Judges
- Whitcher
- Legal Topics
- Condonation, Review Application Lapse, Practice Manual Clauses, Jurisdiction, Archiving of Files
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mogamberry Maduray Pillay
Applicant
Ethekwini Municipality: Communications Department
Respondent
Keshree Kemi N.O.
Respondent
SALGBC
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Review Condonation Ruling; Jurisdictional Challenge
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the review application had lapsed in terms of the Labour Court Practice Manual clauses 11.2.7 and 16.1.
- 2 Whether the court retained jurisdiction to hear the review application after lapse.
- 3 Whether the applicant complied with the time limits for filing necessary papers and notifying the registrar.
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant failed to comply with the Practice Manual requirements by not filing the written notice to the registrar within 12 months of launching the review application and allowing the matter to remain stagnant for more than 6 months. The Practice Manual is clear that such non-compliance results in the application being archived and regarded as lapsed. The Labour Appeal Court has confirmed that, in these circumstances, the court lacks jurisdiction and must strike the matter from the roll. The applicant was warned of the lapse but persisted without seeking reinstatement. Accordingly, the review application is struck from the roll for lack of jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
Review application struck from the roll for lack of jurisdiction.
Orders
- The review is struck from the roll on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
52 paragraphs
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(HELD IN DURBAN)
Case No: D 96/22
Not Reportable
In the matter between:
MOGAMBERRY MADURAY PILLAY
Applicant
and
ETHEKWINI MUNICIPALITY:
COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT
First Respondent
KESHREE KEMI N.O.
Second Respondent
SALGBC
Third Respondent
Heard:
13 November 2024
Judgment delivered: 20 January 2025
JUDGMENT
WHITCHER J
Introduction
[1] The applicant seeks to review a condonation ruling issued by the second respondent on 22 January 2022. The first respondent contends that the review application has lapsed; accordingly, the court is not vested with jurisdiction to hear and determine the review.
The law
[2] The critical clauses in the Practice Manual provide:
Clause 11.2.7:
‘A review application is by its nature an urgent application. An applicant in a review application is therefore required to ensure
that all the necessary papers in the application are filed within twelve (12) months of the date of the launch of the application
(excluding Heads of Arguments) and the registrar is informed in writing that the application is ready for allocation of hearing.
Where this time limit is not complied with, the application will be archived and be regarded as lapsed unless good cause is shown why the application should be archived or be removed from the archive.’
Clause 16.1:
In spite of any other provision in this manual, the Registrar will archive a file in the following circumstances:
In the case of an application in terms of Rule 7 or Rule 7A, when a period of six months has elapsed without any steps taken by the applicant from the date of filing the application, or the date of the last process filed. (own emphasis)
16.3:
Where a file has been placed in archives, it shall have the same consequences as to further conduct by any respondent party as to the matter having been dismissed.’
[3] According to the Labour Appeal Court in E Tradex[1], clause 11.2.7 requires a written request from the applicant to the Registrar to set the matter down.
[4] And, according to my interpretation, the written notice to the Registrar must also be filed within twelve (12) months of the date of the launch of the review.
[5] The LAC, supra, further held that where the requirements, set out in clauses 11.2.7 and 16.1, are not met and the matter is regarded as lapsed, as a matter of law the court is obliged to strike the matter from the roll on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
The relevant facts
[6] The review application was launched on 7 March 2022.
[7] The 12-month period in clause 11.2.7 expired on 7 March 2023.
[8] The first respondent’s answering affidavit was filed on 4 November 2022, that is, 4 months before the expiry of the 12-month period.
[9] On 31 July 2023, the applicant informed the registrar in writing that the application is ready for allocation of hearing.
[10] The matter was thus stagnant for more than 6 months before the notice to the registrar was filed and the notice was filed well outside the 12-month period, namely more than 4 months after the expiry of the 12-month period.
[11] On these facts, whichever way one looks at the matter, the review had lapsed by the time the applicant requested a set down notice. The court is accordingly obliged to strike the matter from the roll on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
[12] As to costs, long before the matter was set down, the first respondent essentially warned the applicant’s representatives that the review had lapsed, yet they persisted to court in the absence of an application to reinstate the review. The applicant’s saving grace is that there is still an employment relationship with the first respondent.
Order
[13] The review is struck from the roll on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Benita Whitcher
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: FAM Attorneys For the First Respondent: Z Qono, instructed by Linda Mazibuko & Associates
[1] E Tradex (PTY) Ltd t/a Global Trade Solution v Finch and Others (CA 12/2021) [2022] ZALAC 106; (2022) 43 ILJ 2727 (LAC) (27 September 2022)