Ekapa Minerals (Pty) Ltd v NUM obo Links (C604/2020) [2025] ZALCCT 127 (2 December 2025)

Case Note

EKAPA MINERALS (PTY) LTD v NUM OBO STALIN LINKS and Others
C604/2020
Delivered: 2 December 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable as it addresses significant issues related to labor law, particularly the principles of procedural and substantive fairness in dismissal cases. The decision elucidates the standards required for condonation regarding late submissions in labor disputes and reinforces the legal framework governing dismissal notifications and the corresponding rights for review applications. The court's reasoning and conclusions contribute to the practical application of the Labour Relations Act, specifically around the requirement for compliance with procedural rules and understanding the implications of mismanagement by legal representatives.

Cases Cited

1. S v Yusuf 1968 (2) SA 52 (A)
2. Uitenhage Transitional Local Council v South African Revenue Service 2003 (4) All SA 37 (SCA)
3. TLE (Pty) Ltd v The Master of the High Court and Others 2012 (2) SA 502 (GSJ)
4. Express Model Trading 289 CC v Dolphin Ridge Body Corporate 2014 (2) All SA 513 (SCA)
5. Melane v Santam Insurance Co. Ltd 1962 (4) SA 531
6. Salojee and another, NNO v Minister of Community Development 1965 (2) SA 135 (A)
7. Nongcantsi v Mnquma Local Municipality and Others [2016] ZALAC 60
8. Parmalat South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others [2009] ZALC 6; 2009 (6) BLLR 558 (LC)

Legislation Cited

• Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
• Rule 7A of the Labour Court Rules

Rules of Court Cited

• Rule 7A(5) and 7A(8)(a) of the Labour Court Rules
• Rule 12(1) concerning the extension or abridgment of timelines on good cause shown.

HEADNOTE

Summary

In a review application brought by Ekapa Minerals against an arbitration award by the CCMA, the Labour Court addressed the dismissal of an employee on grounds of failing to pass mandatory security vetting protocols. The court examined the procedural, substantive fairness involved in the dismissal, the timeliness of the review application, and the conditions under which condonation for late filings could be granted. Ultimately, the court dismissed the application for review, holding that the CCMA's decision was well-founded and supported by the evidence.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed in this case revolved around:

1. The procedural fairness of the dismissal process undertaken by the employer.
2. The substantive fairness regarding the justification for the employee's dismissal based on security vetting failures.
3. The appropriateness of condoning the late filing of an answering affidavit in the context of labor disputes.
4. The obligations of legal representatives in adhering to court rules and timelines.

Held

The Labour Court held that the application for review was dismissed, stating that the CCMA's decision concerning the dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair. Furthermore, the court emphasized the necessity of adherence to timelines set out in labor dispute proceedings and rejected the application for condonation for late submissions.

THE FACTS

Ekapa Minerals (Pty) Ltd, the applicant, sought review of an arbitration award that upheld the dismissal of the First Respondent, Stalin Links, for failing to maintain the required security vetting status, which was a condition of his employment. Links had failed two polygraph tests, which signaled a breach of the employment agreement. The case involved a lengthy delay in filing the responding affidavits, with the First Respondent only filing such documents nearly 475 days past the deadline. The Applicant opposed this delay on grounds of gross negligence by Links and his attorney.

THE ISSUES

The primary legal questions before the court included whether:

1. The dismissal of Links was procedurally and substantively fair.
2. The First Respondent was entitled to condonation for the late filing of his answering affidavit and the required submissions.
3. The grounds for review presented by the Applicant met the requisite legal standards.

ANALYSIS

In its reasoning, the Labour Court scrutinized the procedural aspects of the dismissal, noting that the employee was given opportunities to rectify his situation regarding the failed polygraph tests but ultimately did not. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining standards of integrity within the workplace, corroborating the employer's rationale for dismissal.

On the matter of late filings, the court articulated that condonation applications require satisfactory explanations for delays and must demonstrate good cause. The Applicant argued that Links' delays were excessive and due to gross negligence, failing to show substantial prospects of success in his case. The court supported this view, highlighting the need for accountability on the part of the respondent and his legal representatives, concluding that negligence could not be an excuse for procedural compliance.

REMEDY

The court ordered the dismissal of the review application with costs, confirming that the arbitration award made by the Commissioner Rabie was valid and justified. The First Respondent's request for condonation was denied, reinforcing legal expectations regarding timely responses within labor dispute contexts.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Key legal principles established in this case include:

1. The necessity for both procedural and substantive fairness in employment dismissals.
2. The harsh implications of delaying legal proceedings and the burden on the late-filing party to justify such delays for condonation to be granted.
3. The court's limited scope in reviewing factual findings made during arbitration unless there are substantial reasons to assert that the findings were unreasonable or capricious.