Ramabulana v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1190/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 500 (16 October 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZALCJHB 500
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Moshoana
- Case number
- JR1190/16
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Moshoana
- Case number
- JR1190/16
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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
ApplicantCommission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
RespondentLawrence Nowesenetz N.O.
RespondentUniversity of South Africa
Respondent Counsel: Imraan Mahomed03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Review Record
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the judicial ruling extending the time period for filing the review record constitutes administrative action.
- 02
Whether reasons must be provided for a judicial ruling made in chambers under Clause 11.2.3 of the Practice Manual.
- 03
Whether the conduct of the third respondent's legal representative in requesting reasons is contemptuous.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Ruling
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.
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.