Rabalela and Others v General Electric Transportation (JS1027-19) [2024] ZALCJHB 72 (29 January 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZALCJHB 72
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- M. T. M. Phehane
- Case number
- JS1027-19
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- M. T. M. Phehane
- Case number
- JS1027-19
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court found that there was no record of the matter being archived by the Registrar as required by item 16 of the Practice Manual. The fact that the matter was set down for a pre-trial conference indicated that it was active and not archived. The respondent's representative failed to substantiate the claim of archiving and did not return to make submissions after being given an opportunity. Consequently, the Court ordered the parties to sign and file a pre-trial minute within seven days, failing which the matter would proceed in terms of rule 6(7). The reasons for the order were provided in response to the respondent's request.
Court disposition
Order issued directing the parties to sign and file a pre-trial minute within seven days, failing which the matter will proceed as contemplated in rule 6(7).
Orders
- The parties are directed to sign and file a pre-trial minute within seven days of the order.
- If the parties fail to sign and file the pre-trial minute within seven days, the matter will proceed as contemplated in rule 6(7) of the Rules for the Conduct of Proceedings in the Labour Court.
02
Material facts
Parties
Collin Rababalela
ApplicantXola Mvimbi
ApplicantVuyani Mnguni
ApplicantPhila Gumede
ApplicantGeneral Electric Transportation (Wabtec)
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Procedure / Pre Trial Conference
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the matter had been archived in terms of item 16 of the Practice Manual of the Labour Court.
- 02
Whether the parties were required to sign and file a pre-trial minute.
- 03
Whether the respondent's representative's absence affected the proceedings.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants' representative expressed surprise at the respondent's assertion that the matter had been archived, indicating no prior knowledge or notice of such archiving. The applicants maintained that there was no record of archiving and that the matter was properly set down for a pre-trial conference.
- Respondent
- The respondent's representative submitted that the matter had been archived as contemplated in item 16 of the Practice Manual of the Labour Court, and implied that the matter should not proceed. However, the representative did not return to make further submissions after being given an opportunity to consider relevant case law.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Practice Manual of the Labour Court, item 16
A matter is not considered archived unless there is a record of archiving by the Registrar, and if archived, it should not be set down for hearing.
- 02
Rules for the Conduct of Proceedings in the Labour Court, rule 6(5) and rule 6(7)
Parties are required to sign and file a pre-trial minute within the time stipulated by the Court, failing which the matter proceeds as contemplated in rule 6(7).
- 03
Lebelo and 406 Others v City of Johannesburg (J2055/14) [2022] ZALCJHB 81 (22 March 2022)
The absence of a party's representative without being excused does not automatically halt proceedings if proper notice and opportunity to be heard were provided.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court found that there was no record of the matter being archived by the Registrar as required by item 16 of the Practice Manual. The fact that the matter was set down for a pre-trial conference indicated that it was active and not archived. The respondent's representative failed to substantiate the claim of archiving and did not return to make submissions after being given an opportunity. Consequently, the Court ordered the parties to sign and file a pre-trial minute within seven days, failing which the matter would proceed in terms of rule 6(7). The reasons for the order were provided in response to the respondent's request.
Obiter and limits
- Had the file been archived, the matter would not have been set down for hearing.
- The respondent's representative was given an opportunity to consider relevant case law but did not return to make submissions.
- The Court expects parties to comply with procedural requirements and orders to ensure the efficient conduct of proceedings.
Court disposition
Order issued directing the parties to sign and file a pre-trial minute within seven days, failing which the matter will proceed as contemplated in rule 6(7).
- The parties are directed to sign and file a pre-trial minute within seven days of the order.
- If the parties fail to sign and file the pre-trial minute within seven days, the matter will proceed as contemplated in rule 6(7) of the Rules for the Conduct of Proceedings in the Labour Court.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Judgment
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: JS1027/19
In the matter between:
COLLIN
RABABALELA
First Applicant
XOLA
MVIMBI
Second Applicant
VUYANI
MNGUNI
Third Applicant
PHILA
GUMEDE
Fourth Applicant
and
GENERAL ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION (WABTEC) Respondent
Heard: 09 March 2023
Delivered: 29 January 2024 (This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by email, publication on the Labour Court website and release to SAFLII. The date and time for handing-down is deemed to be 10h00 on 29 January 2024.)
REASONS
FOR ORDER
PHEHANE, J
[1] This matter was set down for a pre-trial conference before a Judge as contemplated in rule 6(5) of the Rules for the Conduct of Proceedings in the Labour Court. The parties were issued with a set down notice to attend a pre-trial conference before a Judge on 9 March 2023. A draft and unsigned pre-trial minute was in the Court file.
[2] On the hearing date, the respondent’s representative submitted that the matter had been archived as contemplated in item 16 of the Practice Manual of this Court,[1] at which the applicant’s representative expressed utter surprise.
[3] There is no record of any archiving of the file by the Registrar of this Court as contemplated in item 16 of the Practice Manual. Had the file been archived, the matter would not have been set down for hearing. I enquired from the respondent’s representative if he had an opportunity to read and consider the judgement of this Court per Moshoana J on the archiving of files.[2] The matter stood down to afford him the opportunity to read and consider the judgment, after which, the matter would be recalled and the parties would be given an opportunity to make submissions.
[4] When the matter was recalled, the respondent’s representative did not reappear and had not been excused by the Court.
[5] I was not persuaded that the matter had been archived. In the circumstances, an order was issued directing the parties to sign and file a pre-trial minute within seven days of the order, failing which, the matter would proceed as contemplated in rule 6(7).
[6] The respondent apparently sought reasons for my order in a letter dated 22 March 2023 which letter did not come to my attention. A follow-up letter dated 25 April 2023 was sent requesting the reasons.
[7] The reasons for the order are as aforesaid.
M. T. M. Phehane
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
[1] Effective 2 April 2013.
[2] Lebelo and 406 Others v City of Johannesburg (J2055/14) [2022] ZALCJHB 81 (22 March 2022).
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.