Simelane v Fidelity Springbok Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR1494/05) [2008] ZALCJHB 13 (1 July 2008)

Simelane v Fidelity Springbok Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR1494/05) [2008] ZALCJHB 13 (1 July 2008)

The court found that while there was a lengthy and unexplained delay in prosecuting the review application, both parties were not sufficiently vigilant. The applicant could have acted sooner to enforce the award or seek dismissal, but the first respondent, as the party seeking review, bore the main responsibility for the delay. However, since the matter was now ready to be set down for hearing and only a court date was outstanding, the court declined to dismiss the review application. The applicant remains entitled to reinstatement and back pay should he succeed in opposing the review. The court expressed displeasure at the first respondent's conduct and ordered it to pay the costs of the...

Citation
[2008] ZALCJHB 13
Parties
Applicant: Madoda Collen Simelane; Respondent: Fidelity Springbok Security Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Nicole Johnston N.O.
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 July 2008
Case Number
JR1494/05
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Dismiss Review for Delay and Defectiveness
Outcome
Application to dismiss the review application is dismissed. Costs awarded against the first respondent.
Judges
Francis
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review Proceedings, Condonation, Delay in Prosecution, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review Proceedings Condonation Delay in Prosecution Costs 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madoda Collen Simelane

Applicant

Fidelity Springbok Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Nicole Johnston N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Dismiss Review for Delay and Defectiveness

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent's review application should be dismissed due to excessive and unreasonable delay in prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the review application is defective for failure to comply with the Labour Court Rules and absence of condonation.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to an order for costs against the first respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while there was a lengthy and unexplained delay in prosecuting the review application, both parties were not sufficiently vigilant. The applicant could have acted sooner to enforce the award or seek dismissal, but the first respondent, as the party seeking review, bore the main responsibility for the delay. However, since the matter was now ready to be set down for hearing and only a court date was outstanding, the court declined to dismiss the review application. The applicant remains entitled to reinstatement and back pay should he succeed in opposing the review. The court expressed displeasure at the first respondent's conduct and ordered it to pay the costs of the...

Court Disposition

Application to dismiss the review application is dismissed. Costs awarded against the first respondent.

Orders

  • The application to dismiss the review application is dismissed.
  • The first respondent is to pay the costs of the application.