Silplat (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C 206/2006) [2011] ZALCCT 3; [2011] 8 BLLR 798 (LC) (21 January 2011)

Silplat (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (C 206/2006) [2011] ZALCCT 3; [2011] 8 BLLR 798 (LC) (21 January 2011)

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay in filing both the review application and the rule 7A(8) notice was wholly unsatisfactory. The applicant's reliance on its attorneys' incorrect advice and subsequent gross negligence did not absolve it of responsibility, especially given the directorship overlap between the company and its attorneys. The company failed to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with court rules and orders, and its conduct demonstrated a lack of bona fide intent to prosecute the review expeditiously. The prejudice to the employee, who had been unable to enforce a substantial award for over five years, outweighed any prejudice to the company....

Citation
[2011] ZALCCT 3
Parties
Applicant: Silplat (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Mr Vuyisa Mazwi N.O.; Respondent: Stephen Marine
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 January 2011
Case Number
C 206/2006
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation
Outcome
All applications for condonation and review are dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Condonation, Rescission of Award, Unfair Dismissal, Review of Ccma Award, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Rescission of Award Unfair Dismissal Review of Ccma Award Procedural Fairness

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Silplat (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Mr Vuyisa Mazwi N.O.

Respondent

Stephen Marine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the review application and rule 7A(8) notice.
  2. 2 Whether the rescission ruling of the CCMA arbitrator is reviewable and should be set aside.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for its default at the arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay in filing both the review application and the rule 7A(8) notice was wholly unsatisfactory. The applicant's reliance on its attorneys' incorrect advice and subsequent gross negligence did not absolve it of responsibility, especially given the directorship overlap between the company and its attorneys. The company failed to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance with court rules and orders, and its conduct demonstrated a lack of bona fide intent to prosecute the review expeditiously. The prejudice to the employee, who had been unable to enforce a substantial award for over five years, outweighed any prejudice to the company....

Court Disposition

All applications for condonation and review are dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for the late filing of the review application pertaining to the award of 3 December 2005 is dismissed.
  • The application for condonation for the late filing of the rule 7A notice is dismissed.