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 13
|
|
Mutise v Clover SA (Pty) Ltd (JR643/01) [2003] ZALCJHB 13 (19 March 2003)
[COMMENT1]
Sneller
Verbatim/JduP
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN
CASE
NO: JR643/01
DATE:
2003.03.19
In
the matter between
P
MUTISE Applicant
and
CLOVER
S A (PTY)
LIMITED Respondent
J
U D G M E N T
EX
TEMPORE
REVELAS,
J
:
1.
In this matter the applicant, represented by a firm called Moosa,
Jeremiah & Associates, from Marshalltown, Johannesburg,
has
brought an application for the review of an arbitration award made by
a commissioner of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation
and
Arbitration (“the CCMA”), Ms Tohlang.
2.
The applicant attended the arbitration proceedings, with a Mr Nzuza
who insisted on representing him. The matter related to applicant's
conduct, and the arbitrator was of the view that the matter was not
complex, and disallowed representation.
3.
The only factor which Mr Nzuza apparently asked the arbitrator was to
consider, when exercising her discretion, is that the matter
is of
public interest since Pick 'n Pay was also involved in the matter.
The arbitrator, after ruling that legal representation
would not be
allowed, gave the applicant an opportunity to consult with Mr Nzuza,
his representative. Upon their return the applicant
said that he was
not proceeding with the matter, and on the advice of his attorney
walked out of the arbitration venue.
4.
Mr Nzuza did not serve the applicant well. The papers purporting to
support this purporting to support this application are extremely
poor. Several postponements were occasioned by Mr Nzuza or his firm
on previous occasions. Mr Nzuza has also signed the Notice
of Motion
in these proceedings and, in a letter received from the firm
representing the applicant. It appears that Mr Nzuza is
currently
still in charge of the matter. In the letter sent to the court and to
the respondent's attorneys the applicant's attorneys
sought a further
postponement.
5.
The applicant was accompanied to court by a person who has no right
of appearance. I therefore dealt with the matter in the normal
course, and refused the application for postponement brought by the
applicant’s attorneys in a letter since they did not
appear
before me themselves.
6.
The applicant, now in person and through an interpreter, brought an
application for a postponement to seek assistance from a
union
representative. In other words, he seeks new representation and no
longer wishes to rely on the advice of his attorneys.The
application
for a postponement was opposed by the respondent, who has
unfortunately been compelled to attend these court proceedings
only
to find that the matter had been postponed once again.
7.
This postponement has been solely caused by the conduct of the
applicant's erstwhile attorneys, who are still his attorneys of
record since no notice of withdrawal has been filed.
8.
In the circumstances and in fairness to the applicant, I believe that
I should exercise my discretion and grant the applicant
an
opportunity to seek new representation. However, I have to take note
of the concerns of the respondents who have incurred legal
costs in
this matter, and unnecessarily so, solely through the behaviour of
the applicant's attorneys of record. In my view, this
firm, Moosa,
Jeremiah & Associates Inc, should bear the wasted costs of today.
9.
In the circumstances I make the following order:
1. The matter
is postponed
sine die
.
2. The
applicant's attorneys of record, Moosa, Jeremiah & Associates
Inc, are to pay the wasted costs incurred on
a scale as between party
and party but
de bonis propriis
.
__________________
E.
Revelas
[COMMENT1]
BEGIN
DEUR 'N "HEADER" TE MAAK