Ratshisusu v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2423/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 159 (26 July 2013)

Ratshisusu v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2423/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 159 (26 July 2013)

The court found that the Third Respondent's answering affidavit was filed eight days late, even accepting the Respondent's version of the date of service. The conditional condonation application was defective and did not comply with the requirements of the Labour Court Rules. The court held that a proper condonation application was required for the late filing of the answering affidavit. The Applicant's replying affidavit was found to have been filed within the prescribed time limits. In the interests of justice and fairness, the court afforded the Third Respondent an opportunity to file a proper condonation application in compliance with the Rules.

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 159
Parties
Applicant: BIFAWU OBO L Ratshisusu; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Lindokuhle Dlamini; Respondent: Innovation Group
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 July 2013
Case Number
JR2423/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Conditional Condonation Application
Outcome
The Third Respondent's conditional condonation application is struck off the roll. The Third Respondent is granted leave to file a proper condonation application in compliance with the Rules.
Judges
Masipa
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing of Affidavit, Service of Process, Labour Court Rules, Review Application
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing of Affidavit Service of Process Labour Court Rules Review Application

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BIFAWU OBO L Ratshisusu

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Lindokuhle Dlamini

Respondent

Innovation Group

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Conditional Condonation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Third Respondent's answering affidavit was filed timeously in terms of the Labour Court Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the conditional condonation application by the Third Respondent complied with the requirements of the Labour Court Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant's replying affidavit was filed within the prescribed time limits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Third Respondent's answering affidavit was filed eight days late, even accepting the Respondent's version of the date of service. The conditional condonation application was defective and did not comply with the requirements of the Labour Court Rules. The court held that a proper condonation application was required for the late filing of the answering affidavit. The Applicant's replying affidavit was found to have been filed within the prescribed time limits. In the interests of justice and fairness, the court afforded the Third Respondent an opportunity to file a proper condonation application in compliance with the Rules.

Court Disposition

The Third Respondent's conditional condonation application is struck off the roll. The Third Respondent is granted leave to file a proper condonation application in compliance with the Rules.

Orders

  • The Third Respondent's conditional condonation application is struck off the roll.
  • The Third Respondent is directed to deliver a condonation application in compliance with the Rules on or before 12 August 2013.