Download PDF

South Africa Ruling

Labour Court Johannesburg

Ramabulana v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1190/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 500 (16 October 2017)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court held that the extension of time for filing the review record was a judicial function, not an administrative action. The judge emphasized that the ruling was made in chambers pursuant to Clause 11.2.3 of the Practice Manual, which does not require the provision of reasons for such rulings. The request for reasons by the third respondent's legal representative was deemed inappropriate and contemptuous, as it mischaracterized the nature of the judicial act. The judge directed that the conduct of the legal practitioner be referred to the relevant law society for investigation.

Court disposition

Application for extension of time granted; request for reasons refused; conduct of third respondent's legal representative referred to law society.

Orders

  • No reasons are to be provided for the ruling.
  • The Registrar is directed to place these reasons with the relevant Law Society for investigation.

02

Material facts

Parties

Avhapfani Oslet Ramabulana

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Lawrence Nowesenetz N.O.

Respondent

University of South Africa

Respondent Counsel: Imraan Mahomed

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Review Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Review Record

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant sought an extension of the time period for filing the review record. No substantive submissions were made regarding the nature of the ruling or the requirement to provide reasons.
Respondent
The third respondent, University of South Africa, argued that the ruling made by the judge constituted administrative action and requested reasons for the ruling. The legal representative asserted that the ruling, made in chambers, should be accompanied by reasons.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Labour Court Practice Manual, Clause 11.2.3

    A judicial ruling made in chambers under Clause 11.2.3 of the Practice Manual is not an administrative action and does not require reasons to be provided.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court held that the extension of time for filing the review record was a judicial function, not an administrative action. The judge emphasized that the ruling was made in chambers pursuant to Clause 11.2.3 of the Practice Manual, which does not require the provision of reasons for such rulings. The request for reasons by the third respondent's legal representative was deemed inappropriate and contemptuous, as it mischaracterized the nature of the judicial act. The judge directed that the conduct of the legal practitioner be referred to the relevant law society for investigation.

Obiter and limits

  • It is concerning that a well-known legal practitioner would mischaracterize a judicial ruling as administrative action.
  • The fact that a ruling is made in chambers does not alter its judicial nature.

Court disposition

Application for extension of time granted; request for reasons refused; conduct of third respondent's legal representative referred to law society.

  • No reasons are to be provided for the ruling.
  • The Registrar is directed to place these reasons with the relevant Law Society for investigation.

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.

Source document

Labour Court Johannesburg

Ruling

[2017] ZALCJHB 500

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

JUDGMENT

Not Reportable

case no: JR 1190/16

In the matter between:

AVHAPFANI

OSLET

RAMABULANA

Applicant

and

COMMISSION

FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION

AND

ARBITRATION

First Respondent

LAWRENCE NOWESENETZ N.O.

Second Respondent

UNIVERSITY

OF SOUTH

AFRICA

Third Respondent

Heard: 16 October 2017

REASONS-

DIRECTIVE 16 OCTOBER 2017

MOSHOANA J

Introduction

[1] The applicant (‘Avhapfani Osley Ramabulana’), brought an application for an extension of the time period for the filing of the record for a review application.

[2] The application was opposed. The Judge President of the Labour Court allocated the file to me for a ruling. Having considered the reasons advanced, I ruled that the period be extended by a period of 30 days.

Issues

[3] For some strange reasons, the third respondent termed my judicial ruling an administrative action and sought to be provided with reasons.

Evaluation

[4] It is saddening to note that the third respondent’s legal representative, well renowned I must add, could refer to a judicial

ruling as an administrative action. I perform judicial functions and not administrative functions. The fact that I made the ruling in chambers does not detract from the fact that I performed judicial functions.

[5] In terms of Clause 11.2.3, I made a ruling and did not perform an administrative action. The practice manual does not make provisions

for providing reasons for a ruling made in terms of Clause 11.2.3.

[6] In fact, I find the conduct of the practitioner involved in this request to be contemptuous. I shall direct the Registrar to place a copy of these reasons with the relevant law society to investigate this conduct.

Order

[7] In the premises, I make the following order:

1. There are no reasons to be provided for the ruling;

2. The Registrar is to place these reasons with the relevant Law Society

_____

Moshoana J

Acting Judge of the Labour Court

Submissions:

For the Applicant:

None

For the Third Respondent: Imraan Mahomed

Instructed by:

Hogan Lovells (South Africa) Inc.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Labour Court Practice Manual

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.