Ramiyal and Others v Clinix Selby Park Hospital (Pty) Ltd (J328/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 485 (17 June 2016)

Ramiyal and Others v Clinix Selby Park Hospital (Pty) Ltd (J328/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 485 (17 June 2016)

The court found the delay of nine months in bringing the s 189A(13) application to be inordinate and inadequately explained. The applicants' reliance on a legal precedent that was overturned months before their dismissals did not justify their failure to pursue available remedies timeously. The remedy under s 189A(13) is designed for ongoing or recently concluded retrenchment processes, not for situations where dismissals have long since occurred. Granting condonation would significantly prejudice the respondent, who is entitled to finality, and the applicants' prospects of success at this late stage are negligible. Accordingly, condonation was refused and the application dismissed.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 485
Parties
Applicant: Joel C Ramiyal & 80 Others; Respondent: Clinix Selby Park Hospital (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 June 2016
Case Number
J328/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing Under S 189 A(13) of the LRA
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the s 189A(13) application is refused; the application is dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Condonation, Retrenchment Procedure, Section 189a Application, Late Filing, Reinstatement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Retrenchment Procedure Section 189a Application Late Filing Reinstatement

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joel C Ramiyal & 80 Others

Applicant

Clinix Selby Park Hospital (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing Under S 189 A(13) of the LRA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the s 189A(13) application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
  3. 3 Whether the remedy under s 189A(13) is available long after dismissals have been effected.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the delay of nine months in bringing the s 189A(13) application to be inordinate and inadequately explained. The applicants' reliance on a legal precedent that was overturned months before their dismissals did not justify their failure to pursue available remedies timeously. The remedy under s 189A(13) is designed for ongoing or recently concluded retrenchment processes, not for situations where dismissals have long since occurred. Granting condonation would significantly prejudice the respondent, who is entitled to finality, and the applicants' prospects of success at this late stage are negligible. Accordingly, condonation was refused and the application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the s 189A(13) application is refused; the application is dismissed.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the s 189A(13) application is refused.
  • The application is dismissed.