South Africa Case Law

MEC for Health, KwaZulu-Natal v King and Others; Department of Correctional Services v Balkaran NO and Others (D2110/18 ; D67/21)

MEC for Health, KwaZulu-Natal v King and Others; Department of Correctional Services v Balkaran NO and Others (D2110/18 ; D67/21) [2025] ZALCD 15; (2025) 46 ILJ 1957 (LC) (31 March 2025)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D2110/18 ; D67/21

Judge

M Makhura

The Labour Court held that the commissioners in both matters committed a material error by failing to enquire into their jurisdiction to arbitrate disputes referred many years after the cause of action arose. The Court found that, despite section 24 of the LRA not prescribing a referral period, disputes must be referred within a reasonable time, with section 191(1) serving as a benchmark. The commissioners should have required the parties to address jurisdiction and delay, especially given the retrospective relief sought. The awards were reviewed and set aside, and the matters remitted for fr…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council
• Delay In Referral
• Condonation
• Prescription Act Application
• Arbitration Award Review

SACCAWU obo Muti v Commission For Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR2148/20)

SACCAWU obo Muti v Commission For Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR2148/20) [2024] ZALCJHB 319 (30 August 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2148/20

Judge

T G Ntshebe

The court found that the Commissioner correctly applied the legal principles governing condonation applications. The Applicant’s explanation for the delay did not cover the entire period and was unsatisfactory. The Applicant cannot be absolved from the negligence of his chosen union representative. The Commissioner’s finding that the delay was excessive and that the explanation was unreasonable was supported by the evidence and relevant authorities. There was no basis for the court to interfere with the Commissioner’s exercise of discretion. The review application was accordingly dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Condonation Application
• Unfair Dismissal
• Delay In Referral
• Negligence Of Representative

Department of Public Works, Roads and Infrastructure, Limpopo Province v Matsobane and Others (JR1415/20)

Department of Public Works, Roads and Infrastructure, Limpopo Province v Matsobane and Others (JR1415/20) [2021] ZALCJHB 401 (20 October 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1415/20

Judge

M I Mangena

The Labour Court reviewed and set aside a condonation ruling, holding that a 13-year delay in referring the dismissal dispute was inadequately explained.

• Condonation
• Unfair Dismissal
• Jurisdiction
• Delay In Referral
• Unfair-dismissal
• Labour-court-review

Mnguni v Khanyile NO and Others (D 1064/2015)

Mnguni v Khanyile NO and Others (D 1064/2015) [2018] ZALCD 24 (15 November 2018)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D 1064/2015

Judge

E Tlhotlhalemaje

Labour Court review dismissed an attack on condonation refusal for a late unfair labour practice referral over a municipal post. No reviewable irregularity was found.

• Condonation
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Prospects Of Success
• Delay In Referral
• Labour-law

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Transnet SOC Limited (PS30/17)

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Transnet SOC Limited (PS30/17) [2018] ZALCPE 16 (6 April 2018)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

PS30/17

Judge

Van Niekerk

The Labour Court refused condonation for a three-and-a-half-year delay in filing a statement of claim, finding the explanation inadequate and prejudice significant.

• Condonation
• Unfair Dismissal
• Jurisdiction Of Ccma
• Delay In Referral
• Labour-law
• Delay-in-referral

Kubeka v GPSSBC and Others (JR1645/15)

Kubeka v GPSSBC and Others (JR1645/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 306 (16 August 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1645/15

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The court found that the Second Respondent correctly accepted the delay was not substantial but failed to provide sufficient reasons for finding the explanation unsatisfactory. However, even if the explanation for the delay were accepted, the Applicant had no reasonable prospects of success on the merits of his unfair dismissal claim. The Applicant was dismissed for dishonesty and had a criminal record, which statutorily disqualified him from employment with the Third Respondent. The grounds for review did not justify interference with the condonation ruling, as they did not establish a case…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Unfair Dismissal
• Prospects Of Success
• Delay In Referral

Motsoele v Highveld Steel And Vanadium Corporation/Evraz Group SA and Others (J432/12)

Motsoele v Highveld Steel And Vanadium Corporation/Evraz Group SA and Others (J432/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 264 (14 August 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J432/12

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The court held that the arbitrator correctly refused condonation for the late referral of the unfair dismissal dispute. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory and comprehensive explanation for the delay, with material contradictions regarding the date of dismissal and insufficient detail about steps taken during the period of delay. The applicant attempted to shift blame solely to his attorneys, but the law does not absolve litigants from responsibility for their chosen representatives' actions. Furthermore, the applicant did not adequately address prospects of success, and the basis…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Unfair Dismissal
• Jurisdiction
• Prospects Of Success
• Delay In Referral

Chemical Energy,Paper,Printing Wood & Allied Workers Union and Others v Metal Box t/a M.B. Glass (JR 557/02)

Chemical Energy,Paper,Printing Wood & Allied Workers Union and Others v Metal Box t/a M.B. Glass (JR 557/02) [2004] ZALC 60; (2005) 26 ILJ 92 (LC); [2004] 11 BLLR 1089 (LC) (19 August 2004)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

JR 557/02

Judge

Maya

The court found that the applicants and their attorneys failed to provide a candid and satisfactory explanation for the excessive delay in referring the dispute. The evidence presented was self-contradictory and lacked credibility. The applicants did not demonstrate sufficient zeal or diligence in pursuing their claim, undermining their assertion of the case's importance. While they may suffer prejudice if condonation is refused, the respondent would equally be prejudiced by the grant of condonation, given the time lapse and practical implications. The court held that the applicants had not m…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Unfair Dismissal
• Delay In Referral
• Prospects Of Success
• Prejudice
• Attorney Negligence

SACCAWU and Others v Cash Paymaster Services (Pty) Ltd (J3104/99)

SACCAWU and Others v Cash Paymaster Services (Pty) Ltd (J3104/99) [2000] ZALC 48 (19 June 2000)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J3104/99

Judge

A A Landman

The Labour Court refused condonation for a late referral after an unprotected-strike dismissal, finding the delay poorly explained, weak prospects and likely prejudice.

• Condonation
• Unprotected Strike
• Dismissal For Strike Action
• Prospects Of Success
• Delay In Referral
• Unprotected-strike