About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2003
>>
[2003] ZALCJHB 5
|
|
Morerwa v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1160/02) [2003] ZALCJHB 5 (7 February 2003)
[COMMENT1]
Sneller
Verbatim/HVDM
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN
CASE
NO: JR1160/02
DATE:
2003-02-07
In
the matter between
S
MORERWA Applicant
and
THE
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND
ARBITRATION
1
st
Respondent
L H CELLIER
N.O. 2
nd
Respondent
MR
PRICE, A DIVISION OF MR PRICE
GROUP LTD
3
rd
Respondent
J
U D G M E N T
REVELAS
J
:
1.
This is an application in which the applicant applied to review and
set aside a ruling made by the second respondent, a commissioner
of
the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (“the
CCMA”), refusing to condone the late referral of
the
applicant’s dismissal dispute to the CCMA.
2.
The applicant's referral was seven and a half weeks out of time.
The explanation given by the applicant to the commissioner
at the
time, when he brought the application, where the respondent was not
present, was that he did not know that there was a 30
day time period
and furthermore that he did not have money to send a fax or referral
to the CCMA.
3.
In his grounds of review, which lacks any averments which would
support a review application, and read more like an appeal, he
leads
new evidence stating that he handed the matter over to his attorneys
who was then lax in processing the matter. He
could provide no
proof that an attorney was acting on his behalf, neith has he stated
any facts to that effect in his grounds of
review.
4.
I have to consider that the applicant has given two conflicting
versions. One to the court and another to the CCMA. In
one of
the applications he has been untruthful. He has put forward no
cogent grounds upon which I could come to the conclusion
that the
ruling should be interfered with. Commissioners of the CCMA are
enjoined to deal with matters expeditiously. Delays
as excessive as
this one may be refused by a commissioner if he or she has exercised
his or her discretion properly, which the
arbitrator appears to have
done in this matter.
5.
Accordingly the application for review is dismissed.
6.
In so far as costs is concerned the applicant's case was based on an
untruthful version and on that basis I agree with counsel
appearing
on behalf of the third respondent that I should make a cost order
against the applicant.
7.
In the circumstances the order reads as follows:
1.
The application for review is dismissed.
2.
The applicant is to pay the third respondent's costs for this
application.
________________
E.
Revelas
PRESIDING
OFFICER
: REVELAS J
ON
BEHALF OF APPLICANT
:
ON
BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
:
[COMMENT1]
BEGIN
DEUR 'N "HEADER" TE MAAK