South Africa Case Law

Torlage N.O and Another v Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and Others and Rural Develpoment (LCC161/2018B)

Torlage N.O and Another v Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and Others and Rural Develpoment (LCC161/2018B) [2022] ZALCC 8 (29 March 2022)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC161/2018B

Judge

Y S Meer

The Court found that the claim forms did not describe or claim Portions 1, 4 and 6 of the farm Waterval No 51, which are owned by the Applicants. The RLCC unlawfully included these properties in the Government Gazette and referral report, despite the claim forms accurately describing other land. The mapping exercise and pointing out of boundaries did not justify the inclusion of unclaimed land, especially where the claim forms were clear and specific. The review application was brought within 180 days of the Applicants acquiring actual knowledge of the irregularity, satisfying the requirement…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• Gazetting Of Land Claims
• Judicial Review
• Administrative Action
• Time Limits For Review

South African Transport and Allied Workers' Union and Another v Tokiso Dispute Settlement and Others (JA 117/13)

South African Transport and Allied Workers' Union and Another v Tokiso Dispute Settlement and Others (JA 117/13) [2015] ZALAC 92 (5 May 2015)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA 117/13

Judges

Waglay, Landman, Mngqibisa-Thusi

The Labour Appeal Court held that a review of a private arbitration award was filed one day late and, without condonation, the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction.

• Arbitration Act Review
• Condonation
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Time Limits For Review
• Publication Of Award
• Arbitration-review

National Commisioner of the South African Police Service v Maritz N.O and Others (C 471/03)

National Commisioner of the South African Police Service v Maritz N.O and Others (C 471/03) [2004] ZALC 49; [2004] 8 BLLR 789 (LC); (2004) 25 ILJ 2227 (LC) (18 June 2004)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

C 471/03

Judge

A A Landman

The court found that the third respondent's late filing of her answering affidavit should be condoned due to her reasonable explanation and efforts to oppose the application. The main application for review was filed outside the six-week time limit prescribed by s33 of the Arbitration Act, and no condonation application was filed by the applicant. The court noted that the Labour Relations Act, as amended, applies to bargaining council arbitrations and that time limits may differ depending on whether a collective agreement exists. The court held that the application is late and should be postp…

Source excerpt

• Condonation Of Late Filing
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Time Limits For Review
• Collective Agreement Application

South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Another v Hiemstra NO and Others (J1669/99)

South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Another v Hiemstra NO and Others (J1669/99) [2000] ZALC 104 (18 September 2000)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J1669/99

Judge

Stelzner

The court found that the explanation for the delay in filing the review application was neither reasonable nor sufficient. The attorney's mistaken belief regarding the applicable statutory provision did not justify the delay, especially given the clear six-week time limit in the Arbitration Act. The matter was not complex or lengthy, and no adequate explanation was provided for the time taken to consult attorneys or to serve and file the review papers. The applicants' prospects of success were slim, as the grounds for review—gross irregularity and bias—were not substantiated. The court held t…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Review
• Condonation
• Bias In Arbitration
• Gross Irregularity
• Time Limits For Review