Security Patrol Experts CC v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration And Others (JR1010/07) [2009] ZALCJHB 24 (14 January 2009)

Security Patrol Experts CC v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration And Others (JR1010/07) [2009] ZALCJHB 24 (14 January 2009)

The applicant failed to provide any substantive explanation for the delay in filing the review application, nor did it address the degree of lateness, prospects of success, or the importance of the case in its affidavits or heads of argument. The evidence presented by the third respondent demonstrated that the applicant was aware of the CCMA award as early as January 2006. The application for condonation was defective and did not meet the requirements established by law. Consequently, the application for condonation was dismissed, and the review application was not properly before the court.

Citation
[2009] ZALCJHB 24
Parties
Applicant: Security Patrol Experts CC; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner KC Moodley; Respondent: Lyle Dennis Nesbitt
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 January 2009
Case Number
JR1010/07
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Review; Review of CCMA Jurisdictional Ruling
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed with costs.
Judges
AC Basson
Legal Topics
Condonation, Jurisdiction, Employee Status, Review of Ccma Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Jurisdiction Employee Status Review of Ccma Award

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Security Patrol Experts CC

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner KC Moodley

Respondent

Lyle Dennis Nesbitt

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Review; Review of CCMA Jurisdictional Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for condonation for the late filing of the review application should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the CCMA had jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute between the applicant and Nesbitt.
  3. 3 Whether Nesbitt was an employee of the applicant for purposes of the LRA.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide any substantive explanation for the delay in filing the review application, nor did it address the degree of lateness, prospects of success, or the importance of the case in its affidavits or heads of argument. The evidence presented by the third respondent demonstrated that the applicant was aware of the CCMA award as early as January 2006. The application for condonation was defective and did not meet the requirements established by law. Consequently, the application for condonation was dismissed, and the review application was not properly before the court.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed with costs.