UKD Marketing CC and Others v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others; Saxon Joinery and Others v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D179/2001) [2002] ZALC 49 (3 June 2002)

UKD Marketing CC and Others v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others; Saxon Joinery and Others v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D179/2001) [2002] ZALC 49 (3 June 2002)

The Court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the review application. The application for condonation was unsupported by confirmatory affidavits and lacked detail regarding the reasons for the delay. The applicants and their attorneys demonstrated gross negligence and disregard for procedural requirements, including failure to deliver heads of argument and improper citation of parties. Only one applicant was properly before the Court, and no relief was granted against him. The Court dismissed the application for condonation and, consequently, the review application. Costs were awarded against the applicants and their attorneys,...

Citation
[2002] ZALC 49
Parties
Applicant: UKD Marketing CC & 5 Others; Applicant: Saxon Joinery & 4 Others; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Pat Stone; Respondent: Bargaining Council for the Furniture Manufacturing Industry
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 June 2002
Case Number
D179/2001
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed with costs; review application dismissed; costs order against applicants and attorneys, later withdrawn against attorneys upon further submissions.
Judges
Pillay D
Legal Topics
Condonation of Late Filing, Review of Arbitration Award, Costs Order, Authority to Bring Application
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation of Late Filing Review of Arbitration Award Costs Order Authority to Bring Application

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UKD Marketing CC & 5 Others

Applicant

Saxon Joinery & 4 Others

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Pat Stone

Respondent

Bargaining Council for the Furniture Manufacturing Industry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants provided a sufficient explanation for the late filing of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the application for condonation should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants and their attorneys should be held liable for costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the review application. The application for condonation was unsupported by confirmatory affidavits and lacked detail regarding the reasons for the delay. The applicants and their attorneys demonstrated gross negligence and disregard for procedural requirements, including failure to deliver heads of argument and improper citation of parties. Only one applicant was properly before the Court, and no relief was granted against him. The Court dismissed the application for condonation and, consequently, the review application. Costs were awarded against the applicants and their attorneys,...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed with costs; review application dismissed; costs order against applicants and attorneys, later withdrawn against attorneys upon further submissions.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed with costs.
  • The first and second applicants in the first matter and the first and fifth applicants in the second matter, and the applicants' attorneys, are to pay the bargaining council's costs on the appropriate High Court scale jointly and severally.