Sibamba v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR231/06) [2006] ZALCJHB 28 (17 November 2006)

Sibamba v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR231/06) [2006] ZALCJHB 28 (17 November 2006)

The court held that the arbitrator did not misdirect himself in refusing condonation for the late referral of the dispute to the CCMA. The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay of nearly eight years between dismissal and referral, and did not establish any reasonable prospects of success in the underlying dispute. The arbitrator's reliance on the principle of prescription and the requirements for condonation under the Labour Relations Act and CCMA Rules was correct. There was no basis for the Labour Court to interfere with the arbitrator's ruling.

Citation
[2006] ZALCJHB 28
Parties
Applicant: Mandla E Sibamba; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: K Mamba NO; Respondent: South African Police Services
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 November 2006
Case Number
JR231/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Review of CCMA Condonation Ruling
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Judges
M M Leeuw
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Referral, Prescription, Jurisdiction, Labour Relations Act
Labour Law Condonation Late Referral Prescription Jurisdiction Labour Relations Act

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mandla E Sibamba

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

K Mamba NO

Respondent

South African Police Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Review of CCMA Condonation Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator's refusal to grant condonation for late referral to the CCMA was reviewable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in referring the dispute.
  3. 3 Whether there were reasonable prospects of success in the underlying dismissal dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the arbitrator did not misdirect himself in refusing condonation for the late referral of the dispute to the CCMA. The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay of nearly eight years between dismissal and referral, and did not establish any reasonable prospects of success in the underlying dispute. The arbitrator's reliance on the principle of prescription and the requirements for condonation under the Labour Relations Act and CCMA Rules was correct. There was no basis for the Labour Court to interfere with the arbitrator's ruling.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party is ordered to pay its own costs.