Shabangu v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR2232/10) [2015] ZALCJHB 197 (8 July 2015)

Shabangu v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR2232/10) [2015] ZALCJHB 197 (8 July 2015)

The court found that the second respondent considered all relevant facts, including the material dates and the applicant's submissions. The applicant failed to establish any grounds for review, as he was aware of the time limits for referral and had acknowledged receipt of the appeal outcome in August 2009. The delay was not caused by the third respondent, and the commissioner afforded the applicant an opportunity to supplement his application. The condonation ruling was reasonable and within the bounds of the law, and there was no basis for the court to interfere.

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 197
Parties
Applicant: Alfred Mandla Shabangu; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Mashooda Patel N.O; Respondent: Anglo Platinum Mine
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 July 2015
Case Number
JR2232/10
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration 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

Alfred Mandla Shabangu

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Mashooda Patel N.O

Respondent

Anglo Platinum Mine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent's refusal to condone the late referral of the unfair dismissal dispute was reasonable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established grounds to have the condonation ruling reviewed and set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second respondent considered all relevant facts, including the material dates and the applicant's submissions. The applicant failed to establish any grounds for review, as he was aware of the time limits for referral and had acknowledged receipt of the appeal outcome in August 2009. The delay was not caused by the third respondent, and the commissioner afforded the applicant an opportunity to supplement his application. The condonation ruling was reasonable and within the bounds of the law, and there was no basis for the court to interfere.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.