About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZALCJHB 366
|
|
Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration v Pelele and Another (J2416/08) [2010] ZALCJHB 366 (22 January 2010)
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(HELD
AT JOHANNESBURG)
CASE
NO: J 2416/08
In
the matter between:
THE
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
MEDIATION
AND
ARBITRATION
Applicant
and
LENTEKILE
PATRIC
PELELE
1
ST
Respondent
TSWAING
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
2
ND
Respondent
EX
TEMPORE JUDGMENT
MOROKA
A J
[1]
In this matter, the parties have agreed that the matter be postponed.
The only issue before me is whether or not I should make
a costs
order.
[2]
The applicant applied for a postponement. The first respondent that
does not agree to the postponement, but has no objection
to the
postponement. On 25 November 2009 and in chambers, my brother
Molahlehi J made an order giving the respondent an opportunity,
if he
so wished, to file papers by 9 December 2009. the heads were to be
filed on 20 January 2010. the matter was then postponed
to 22 January
2010.
[3]
I have not had an opportunity to read the entire file, but I have had
an opportunity to peruse the draft order, to peruse the
affidavit
filed today, 22 January 2010, and to peruse the application for
rescission filed by the applicant. I am of the view that
indeed had
the first respondent sought to file affidavit, he should have done so
within the time limits prescribed by my brother
Molahlehi J. I do not
understand the argument that this application has been filed
prematurely (because there is no application
for condonation or that
the condonation application has still not been moved and there is no
prayer for condonation by the applicant
in its notice of motion) and
that therefore, as a point
in limine
, there is no valid
application for condonation filed with the Court. I find that the
respondent has not been diligent in his prosecution
or opposition of
this matter. He should have filed his papers on time, he should have
complied with the directives set by my brother
Molahlehi J. I
therefore find that it is fair and appropriate to make an order
against the first respondent.
I
therefore make the following order:
1.
the matter is postponed
sine die.
2.
costs are granted against the first respondent on an attorney
and own
client basis.
KGOMOTSO
MOROKA
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE LABOUR COURT
Date
of hearing : 22 January 2010.
Date
of Judgment: 22 January 2010
Appearences:
For
the applicant : Mr. D Hochstrasser from Bowman Gilfillan Inc.
For
the first respondent: Mr. Scholtz from Jansens Incorporated