About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2014
>>
[2014] ZALCJHB 168
|
|
Nyikila v First National Bank, A Division Of FirstRand Bank Ltd (JS541/13) [2014] ZALCJHB 168 (8 May 2014)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE LABOUR COURT SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
NOT
REPORTABLE
CASE
NO: JS 541/13
In
the matter between –
MONGESI
CHRISTMAS NYIKILA
Applicant
And
FIRST
NATIONAL BANK, A DIVISION OF
FIRSTRAND
BANK LIMITED
First
Respondent
EUGENE
BRITZ
Second
Respondent
Date
heard: 23 April 2014
Date
of judgment: 08 May 2014
Summary: Application
for condonation. Failure to comply with the provisions of rule 11.
Applicant granted leave to file application
for condonation, late
filing of the statement of case instead applicant writing letter to
Judge. Applicant having LLB & LLM
claim to be ignorant of the
procedure to follow when applying for
condonation.
REASONS FOR THE ORDER
MOLAHLEHI
J
[1]
On 04 February 2014, Basson J made an order
directing the applicant to file condonation application for the late
filing of his statement
of case before 28 February 2014.
[2]
The applicant purported to comply with the order
by addressing the letter to the Honourable Judge Basson dated 24
February 2014.
[3]
The condonation application is essentially an
interlocutory application, and therefore the governed by the Rule 11
of the rules
of the Labour Court. In terms of this rule in the
applications must be brought on notice and be supported by
affidavits.
[4]
In line with the objects of the Labour Relations
Act, the rules provide for procedures to follow and those procedures
are intended
to provide a framework for the speedy resolution of
disputes. It is inevitable that the failure comply with the rules of
the Court
will hinder the speedy resolution of disputes and undermine
the system of administration of labour justice. Unless the interests
of justice and fairness dictates otherwise, the Court must require
compliance with the rules at all times and adopt a zero tolerance
with non-compliance.
[5]
In the present instance the applicant has failed
to comply with the provisions of rule 11 in all respects. He has not
served and
filed a notice of motion neither has he filed an affidavit
in that respect.
[6]
The applicant was granted leave to file the
condonation applicant for the purposes of compliance with the time
frame provided for
in Section 191 of the Labour Relation Act. Having
failed to comply with the requirements of rule 11 means no proper
application
for condonation was ever placed before the Court.
Accordingly the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the
applicant’s
claim
[7]
There is further no basis to indulge the applicant
even if for whatsoever reason the letter he addressed to the
honourable judge
was to be treated as some form of an application for
condonation.
[8]
It is trite that in an application for condonation
the applicant must deal with the reason for the delay, the period
of the
delay, the prospects of success and the prejudice that would
be suffered if condonation is refused or granted.
[9]
Something that appears like a reason for the delay
is what is stated at paragraph 2 of the letter. The applicant states
in paragraph
that he was advised by the Commissioner who conducted
the conciliation that the certificate of non-resolution was valid for
a period
of six months.
[10]
The letter does not deal with any other factors
relevant to assist the Court in determining whether the interests of
justice would
support the granting of refusal of the condonation.
[11]
The alleged incorrect advice by the Commissioner
that the certificate is valid for six months cannot sustain as an
explanation for
the delay. In fact I should say it is no explanation
at all. The applicant has both an LLB and LLM degrees. He also states
that
at some point during his employment with the respondent he
served in the portfolio of the HR where he was responsible for Labour
Relations and Employment Equity.
[12]
It was for the above reason that the applicant’s
condonation application was dismissed.
_______________
E Molahlehi
Judge of the Labour
Court of South Africa
Appearances:
For
the Applicant: No appearance
For
the Respondent: X D Matyolo
Instructed
by:
Shepstone & Wylie Attorneys