Tshabalala v Kruger (JR475/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 2 (11 January 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZALCJHB 2
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Seedat
- Case number
- JR475/14
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Seedat
- Case number
- JR475/14
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that a default judgment cannot be granted in review proceedings of a jurisdictional ruling. The applicant failed to set out any grounds for review and did not comply with the Registrar's directive to outline the facts relied upon. Furthermore, the application appeared to be out of time and no condonation was sought. As a result, the application was dismissed.
Court disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- The matter is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Samuel Tshabalala
ApplicantWillie Hendrik Kruger
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Dismissal of Application for Default Judgment on Review
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a default judgment can be granted in a review of a jurisdictional ruling.
- 02
Whether the applicant set out sufficient grounds for review.
- 03
Whether the review application was brought within the prescribed time period.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought to review the CCMA commissioner's ruling that he was not an employee but an independent contractor, alleging that the employer terminated the contract without notice. He applied for default judgment due to lack of opposition from the respondent.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not oppose the application and did not file any submissions.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Court practice
A default judgment is not competent in review proceedings of a jurisdictional ruling.
- 02
Labour Relations Act, 1995
Applicants must set out clear grounds for review when challenging a commissioner's ruling.
- 03
Labour Relations Act, 1995
Review applications must be brought within the prescribed time period, failing which condonation must be sought.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that a default judgment cannot be granted in review proceedings of a jurisdictional ruling. The applicant failed to set out any grounds for review and did not comply with the Registrar's directive to outline the facts relied upon. Furthermore, the application appeared to be out of time and no condonation was sought. As a result, the application was dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- Proof of service was filed but it was unclear what was served on the respondent.
- No order as to costs was made due to the circumstances of the case.
Court disposition
Application dismissed.
- The matter is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Judgment
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Reportable/Not Reportable
Case No JR 475/14
In the matter between:
SAMUEL TSHABALALA Applicant
and
WILLIE
HENDRIK KRUGER Respondent
Heard: 10 January 2017
Delivered: 11 January 2017
Summary: Application for default judgment not possible on a review of a jurisdictional ruling. The applicant has in, any event, not set out the grounds of review. The application may also be out of time.
SEEDAT. AJ
[1] The commissioner of the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) had, on 12 April 2014, found that the Applicant
was not an employee of the Respondent but an independent contractor.
[2] The Applicant then sought to review this ruling of the commissioner on the ground that:
“The employer terminate (sic) the contract without notice.”
[3] There was no opposition from the Respondent and the Applicant applied for judgment by default on 14 October 2014.
[4] On 16 February 2016, the Registrar directed a letter to the Applicant stating:
‘”. The above matter has been handed to Justice in chambers for perusal and direction.
2. I have been directed to write to you as follows:-
“(a) The Applicant is to outline the facts to be relied on in the statement of claim.
(b) The Applicant is further to attach the registered post slip as proof of service.”
[5] The proof of service dated 25 November 2016 was filed though it is not clear as to what was served on the Respondent. However, no attempt has been made to elaborate on the grounds for review.
[6] The Applicant has not set out the grounds on which he seeks to have the ruling of the commissioner reviewed.
[7] There is too, the fact that this was a ruling on jurisdiction by the commissioner. The Applicant cannot, therefore, ask for judgment by default.
[8] Lastly, it would appear that the application for review is outside the prescribed time period and no application for condonation has been made.
Order
1. The matter is dismissed
2. There is no order as to costs.
______
SEEDAT AJ
Acting Judge of the Labour Court
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.