Toyota SA Motors (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR2627/11) [2014] ZALCJHB 334 (2 September 2014)
The court found that the applicant failed to place an adequate record before the court and did not prosecute the review application diligently, with an 18-month delay and no substantial steps taken. The Labour Relations Act, the Rules of Court, and the Practice Manual emphasize speedy dispute resolution. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] ZALCJHB 334
- Parties
- Applicant: Toyota SA Motors (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner T Serero NO; Respondent: RAWU; Respondent: M Makothla
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR2627/11
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Fourie
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Review Application Dismissal, Delay in Prosecution, Incomplete Record, Costs Award
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Toyota SA Motors (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
The Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration
Respondent
Commissioner T Serero NO
Respondent
RAWU
Respondent
M Makothla
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the dismissal of the review application.
- 2 Whether the applicant's failure to place an adequate record before the court and prosecute the review application timeously justifies dismissal.
- 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons for granting leave to appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to place an adequate record before the court and did not prosecute the review application diligently, with an 18-month delay and no substantial steps taken. The Labour Relations Act, the Rules of Court, and the Practice Manual emphasize speedy dispute resolution. The applicant's inability to reconstruct the record was partly its own fault. The court held that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and no compelling reasons to grant leave. The discretion to dismiss review proceedings on these grounds was properly exercised, and the defective record could not be remedied.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not reportable
Case no: JR2627/11
In the matter between:
TOYOTA SA MOTORS (PTY) LTD Applicant And THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION First Respondent COMMISSIONER T SERERO NO Second Respondent RAWU Third Respondent M MAKOTHLA Fourth Respondent
Date of ruling: 2 September 2014
Ruling: Leave to appeal
FOURIE AJ
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against an extempore judgment delivered on 9 July 2014. In the judgment, the court granted an application to dismiss a review application.
[2] The primary grounds on which the judgment is based are the failure to place an adequate record before the Court, and the failure to prosecute the review application timeously and diligently.
[3] The test to be applied is set out in the section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013. The section provides that, leave to appeal should be granted only when the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success or where there are some other compelling reasons why appeal should be heard.
[4] I have considered the grounds on which leave to appeal is sought, and the submissions filed (and I grant condonation for late filing of submissions where necessary).
[5] In determining whether to dismiss review proceedings on grounds of either delay in prosecuting it, or the failure to place a proper record before the Court, a discretion is exercised. It is trite that it is competent for a Court to dismiss review proceedings on either ground. See for example Solidarity obo Botha v CCMA and Others [2009] 3 BLLR 257 (LC), Bezuidenhout v Johnston NO and Others (2006) 27 ILJ 2337 (LC).
[6] As stated in the extempore judgment, the LRA, the Rules of Court and the current Practice Manual (which has been in force since 2013) place a firm emphasis on speedy dispute resolution. In circumstances where, partly (but not entirely) due to its own fault (in failing to keep proper notes and therefore being unable to reconstruct a record), a party simply lets the matter lie and takes no substantial steps for 18 months to prosecute the review application, it is difficult to imagine any other outcome that the review application failing. Little purpose is served in granting leave to appeal where the record itself is defective and cannot be improved, and no reviewable irregularities appear from the award itself or the partial record.
[7] I am therefore not persuaded that another court might reasonably come to a different conclusion, nor I am persuaded to believe that there are any compelling reasons why leave should be granted.
Therefore, the following order is made:
1 The application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs.
_____________________
Fourie AJ
Acting Judge of the Labour Court