Shoprite Checkers v Pillay NO and Others (D636/2009) [2014] ZALCD 33 (1 August 2014)

Shoprite Checkers v Pillay NO and Others (D636/2009) [2014] ZALCD 33 (1 August 2014)

The Court found that the arbitration award issued on 14 July 2009 in favour of the Third Respondent had prescribed in terms of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969, as no steps were taken to certify the award or make it an order of court, and the filing of a review application did not interrupt prescription. The defence of prescription was properly before the Court, and the Third Respondent was not prejudiced in responding. The application for condonation for the late filing of the answering affidavit was dismissed due to excessive delay and lack of explanation. As a result, the review application and other interlocutory applications became academic.

Citation
[2014] ZALCD 33
Parties
Applicant: Shoprite Checkers; Respondent: Anashrin Pillay NO; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Desenthrie Moodley
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 August 2014
Case Number
D636/2009
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review, Prescription, and Condonation Applications
Outcome
The arbitration award and any claims arising therefrom have prescribed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Prescription Act Application, Arbitration Award Enforcement, Condonation, Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Prescription Act Application Arbitration Award Enforcement Condonation Unfair Dismissal

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shoprite Checkers

Applicant

Anashrin Pillay NO

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Desenthrie Moodley

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review, Prescription, and Condonation Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued in favour of the Third Respondent has prescribed under the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.
  2. 2 Whether the application for condonation for the late filing of the answering affidavit should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the review application and other interlocutory applications are rendered academic by prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the arbitration award issued on 14 July 2009 in favour of the Third Respondent had prescribed in terms of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969, as no steps were taken to certify the award or make it an order of court, and the filing of a review application did not interrupt prescription. The defence of prescription was properly before the Court, and the Third Respondent was not prejudiced in responding. The application for condonation for the late filing of the answering affidavit was dismissed due to excessive delay and lack of explanation. As a result, the review application and other interlocutory applications became academic.

Court Disposition

The arbitration award and any claims arising therefrom have prescribed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The award issued on 14 July 2009 in favour of the Third Respondent, and any claims arising therefrom, has prescribed in terms of the provisions of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.
  • There is no order as to costs.