Utility Economics CC v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2531/10) [2013] ZALCJHB 103 (21 May 2013)
- Citation
- [2013] ZALCJHB 103
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Steenkamp
- Case number
- JR2531/10
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Steenkamp
- Case number
- JR2531/10
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The employer failed to prosecute its review application for over two years and provided no explanation for the delay. The employee complied with all procedural requirements and suffered prejudice due to the employer's inaction. The court found that the delay was excessive and unjustified, warranting dismissal of the review application. The arbitration award was made an order of court to ensure enforcement. Costs were awarded against the employer because the employee was forced to incur further legal expenses due to the employer's failure to act, contrary to the expeditious and inexpensive nature of CCMA proceedings.
Court disposition
Review application dismissed; arbitration award made an order of court; costs awarded against applicant.
Orders
- The applicant’s review application is dismissed.
- The award of the second respondent under case number GAJB 11690-10 is made an order of court.
- The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application.
02
Material facts
Parties
Utility Economics CC
Applicant Counsel: Angelo PantazisCCMA
RespondentCommissioner Thulani Akim
RespondentElwen, Sylvia
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Application to Dismiss Review and Make Arbitration Award an Order of Court
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the employer's review application should be dismissed due to excessive delay.
- 02
Whether the arbitration award should be made an order of court.
- 03
Whether the applicant should be ordered to pay costs.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant did not file any opposition to the application to dismiss the review or to make the arbitration award an order of court. No explanation was provided for the two-year delay in prosecuting the review application.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that the employer failed to pursue the review application for over two years, causing prejudice to the employee who had been reinstated by the arbitration award. The respondent fulfilled all obligations and sought dismissal of the review and enforcement of the award, as well as costs due to unnecessary legal expenses incurred.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995
A party seeking to review an arbitration award must prosecute the review application expeditiously and without undue delay.
- 02
Rule 7A(8) of the Labour Court Rules
Where a party fails to advance its case and causes prejudice to the opposing party, the court may dismiss the application and make the arbitration award an order of court.
- 03
Labour Court discretion
Costs may be awarded against a party whose conduct necessitates unnecessary litigation and expense for the opposing party.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The employer failed to prosecute its review application for over two years and provided no explanation for the delay. The employee complied with all procedural requirements and suffered prejudice due to the employer's inaction. The court found that the delay was excessive and unjustified, warranting dismissal of the review application. The arbitration award was made an order of court to ensure enforcement. Costs were awarded against the employer because the employee was forced to incur further legal expenses due to the employer's failure to act, contrary to the expeditious and inexpensive nature of CCMA proceedings.
Obiter and limits
- The CCMA process is intended to be expeditious and cost-effective, and parties should not frustrate this purpose by failing to prosecute their cases.
- Even in the absence of opposition, the court will not condone excessive delay that prejudices the other party.
Court disposition
Review application dismissed; arbitration award made an order of court; costs awarded against applicant.
- The applicant’s review application is dismissed.
- The award of the second respondent under case number GAJB 11690-10 is made an order of court.
- The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application.
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
JR2531/10/ev 1 JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: JR2531/10
DATE: 2013-05-21
In the matter between
UTILITY ECONOMICS CC .................................................................................Applicant
and
CCMA ......................................................................................................First respondent
COMMISSIONER
THULANI AKIM .....................................................Second repondent
ELWEN,
SYLVIA ...................................................................................Third respondent
_____________
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
STEENKAMP, J:
This is a twofold application: firstly, to dismiss an application for review instituted by the employer, Utility Economics CC, in October 2010; and secondly, to make an arbitration award of 8 September 2010 by the second respondent (the commissioner) under the auspices of the first respondent (the CCMA) an order of court.
The arbitration award was handed down on 8 September 2010. The employer (the applicant in the review application), represented by Maharaj attorneys, delivered a review application on 4 October 2010.
The employer delivered the record on 28 February 2011. It filed its notice in terms of Rule 7A(8) more than two years ago, on 10 March 2011. The employee, within the requisite time period, on 24 March 2011, delivered her answering affidavit. For the ensuing two years the employer party has done nothing to pursue the arbitration award. The delay is clearly excessive. The employer has offered no explanation for that delay which has led to clear prejudice to the employee who has been reinstated in terms of the arbitration award.
The employee has fulfilled all of her obligations to pursue the review application. The employer has not done so. In those circumstances there is no doubt in my mind that the review application should be dismissed and that the arbitration award should be made an order of court.
With regard to costs, even though the employer has not opposed this application, it should not have been necessary for the employee over a period of two years to incur further legal costs after she pursued her remedies in the CCMA -- which are supposed to be expeditious and cheap -- because the employer has not fulfilled its obligations. I therefore grant an order in the following terms:
The applicant’s review application is dismissed.
The award of the second respondent under case number GAJB 11690-10 is made an order of court.
The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application.
________
STEENKAMP J
APPEARANCES
APPLICANT: Angelo Pantazis
Instructed by Brian Bleazard attorneys.
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.