SAMWU obo Shongwe and Others v Myhill N.O and Others (Reasons) (JR1401/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 284 (7 May 2025)

SAMWU obo Shongwe and Others v Myhill N.O and Others (Reasons) (JR1401/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 284 (7 May 2025)

The Court found that the first respondent correctly determined that the dispute arose on 2 July 2008 and that the applicant failed to act for five years. There was no evidence of protracted negotiations to justify the delay. The first respondent applied the principles of condonation, considering the degree of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZALCJHB 284
Parties
Applicant: SAMWU obo K Shongwe & 45 Others; Respondent: Eric Myhill N.O.; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 May 2025
Case Number
JR1401/21
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Reasons for Order Following Dismissal of Review Application
Outcome
Review application dismissed with costs.
Judges
M T M Phehane
Legal Topics
Condonation, Jurisdiction of Ccma, Collective Agreement Interpretation, Late Referral, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Jurisdiction of Ccma Collective Agreement Interpretation Late Referral Review of Arbitration Award

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAMWU obo K Shongwe & 45 Others

Applicant

Eric Myhill N.O.

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Reasons for Order Following Dismissal of Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to determine the dispute in light of the late referral.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent exercised his discretion judiciously in refusing condonation for the late referral.
  3. 3 Whether the grounds of review advanced by the applicant have merit.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the first respondent correctly determined that the dispute arose on 2 July 2008 and that the applicant failed to act for five years. There was no evidence of protracted negotiations to justify the delay. The first respondent applied the principles of condonation, considering the degree of lateness, explanation, prospects of success, and prejudice to the third respondent. The delay was egregious, and no sound reason was provided. As section 24 of the LRA does not prescribe a time frame, the reasonable time yardstick from section 191 applies. The first respondent exercised his discretion judiciously and fairly, and his ruling refusing condonation and finding the CCMA...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.