Sibiya v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR838/2011) [2012] ZALCJHB 172 (6 December 2012)

Sibiya v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR838/2011) [2012] ZALCJHB 172 (6 December 2012)

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the review application. She did not take the court into her confidence by explaining all relevant periods and details of the delay, nor did she provide specific information regarding her previous attorneys or union...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] ZALCJHB 172
Parties
Applicant: T D Sibiya; Respondent: CCMA Mpumalanga; Respondent: Glen Cormack N.O; Respondent: South African Revenue Services
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 December 2012
Case Number
JR838/2011
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for condonation and review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Condonation, Review of Arbitration Award, Unfair Dismissal, Prospects of Success
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Review of Arbitration Award Unfair Dismissal Prospects of Success

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T D Sibiya

Applicant

CCMA Mpumalanga

Respondent

Glen Cormack N.O

Respondent

South African Revenue Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the late filing of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether condonation for the late filing of the review application should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner ought to have ordered reinstatement instead of compensation after finding the dismissal substantively unfair.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the review application. She did not take the court into her confidence by explaining all relevant periods and details of the delay, nor did she provide specific information regarding her previous attorneys or union involvement. The explanation offered was inadequate and the delay was excessive. In these circumstances, the court found that condonation should not be granted, and it was unnecessary to consider the prospects of success. Consequently, the application to review the arbitration award was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to review the arbitration award made under case number MP 495809 dated 5 August 2010 is dismissed with costs.