Sambo and Others v Steytler Boerdery (C592/13) [2014] ZALCCT 33; (2014) 35 ILJ 3235 (LC) (3 June 2014)

Sambo and Others v Steytler Boerdery (C592/13) [2014] ZALCCT 33; (2014) 35 ILJ 3235 (LC) (3 June 2014)

The court found that the applicants were dismissed on 21 January 2013, not 8 January 2013 as alleged in their referral to the CCMA. The dispute referred to conciliation was based on an incorrect date and thus did not cover the actual dismissal. As conciliation is a statutory prerequisite for the Labour Court's jurisdiction, and no valid referral was made for the true dismissal date, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The applicants, represented by their union, persisted with the referral despite being aware of the correct dismissal date and failed to withdraw or properly refer the dispute. The court dismissed the referral for lack of jurisdiction and ordered costs...

Citation
[2014] ZALCCT 33
Parties
Applicant: Daniel Sambo; Applicant: Jacques Jaftha; Applicant: Andries Ambrose; Applicant: Dawid Jooste; Applicant: Salmon Swarts; Applicant: Daniel Jonas; Applicant: Linda Afrika; Applicant: Adean Bruintjies; Applicant: Esmeralda Grootboom; Applicant: Donovan Grootboom; Applicant: Christian Paulsen; Applicant: CSAAWU; Respondent: Steytler Boerdery
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 June 2014
Case Number
C592/13
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Jurisdictional Point in Limine Raised at Trial Commencement
Outcome
Referral dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Judges
A J Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Strike Action, Jurisdiction, Conciliation Requirement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Strike Action Jurisdiction Conciliation Requirement

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

Daniel Sambo

Applicant

Jacques Jaftha

Applicant

Andries Ambrose

Applicant

Dawid Jooste

Applicant

Salmon Swarts

Applicant

Daniel Jonas

Applicant

Linda Afrika

Applicant

Adean Bruintjies

Applicant

Esmeralda Grootboom

Applicant

Donovan Grootboom

Applicant

Christian Paulsen

Applicant

CSAAWU

Applicant

Steytler Boerdery

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Jurisdictional Point in Limine Raised at Trial Commencement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dismissal dispute when the actual dismissal date was not referred to conciliation.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were dismissed on 8 January 2013 or 21 January 2013.
  3. 3 Whether the referral to the CCMA was valid for the dispute before the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were dismissed on 21 January 2013, not 8 January 2013 as alleged in their referral to the CCMA. The dispute referred to conciliation was based on an incorrect date and thus did not cover the actual dismissal. As conciliation is a statutory prerequisite for the Labour Court's jurisdiction, and no valid referral was made for the true dismissal date, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The applicants, represented by their union, persisted with the referral despite being aware of the correct dismissal date and failed to withdraw or properly refer the dispute. The court dismissed the referral for lack of jurisdiction and ordered costs...

Court Disposition

Referral dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The referral is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, including the costs of counsel, jointly and severally, the one paying, the other to be absolved.