Piotrans (Pty) Ltd v Taunyane and Others (J1803/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 298 (17 August 2017)

Piotrans (Pty) Ltd v Taunyane and Others (J1803/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 298 (17 August 2017)

The court found that the applicant failed to act with the necessary haste, as there was a delay of twelve days after notification of the arbitration set-down before approaching the court. The applicant did not provide adequate reasons for urgency or explain why the application could not have been launched immediately after the CCMA ruling or upon receipt of the set-down notice. The mere fact of an imminent arbitration hearing does not, in itself, establish urgency. The court further held that the applicant has an alternative remedy under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act to review the arbitration award after the proceedings are completed. The application was therefore not urgent and...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 298
Parties
Applicant: Piotrans (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Beulah Hephzibah Taunyane; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Eugene Mtileni N.O
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 August 2017
Case Number
J1803/17
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Urgent Application to Stay CCMA Preliminary Ruling Pending Review
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency.
Judges
E Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Urgent Application, Stay of Arbitration, Unfair Suspension, Review of Ccma Ruling
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgent Application Stay of Arbitration Unfair Suspension Review of Ccma Ruling

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Piotrans (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Beulah Hephzibah Taunyane

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Eugene Mtileni N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Urgent Application to Stay CCMA Preliminary Ruling Pending Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established sufficient urgency to justify deviation from ordinary court rules.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order staying the CCMA preliminary ruling pending review.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has an alternative remedy available under the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to act with the necessary haste, as there was a delay of twelve days after notification of the arbitration set-down before approaching the court. The applicant did not provide adequate reasons for urgency or explain why the application could not have been launched immediately after the CCMA ruling or upon receipt of the set-down notice. The mere fact of an imminent arbitration hearing does not, in itself, establish urgency. The court further held that the applicant has an alternative remedy under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act to review the arbitration award after the proceedings are completed. The application was therefore not urgent and...

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency.

Orders

  • The applicant’s application is struck off the roll on account of lack of urgency.