About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZALCJHB 296
|
|
Mokgosana v South African Police Services and Others (JR2599/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 296 (25 August 2015)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
CASE NO: JR2599/12
In
the matter between:
MOKGOSANA
LESIBANA SHIRLEY
Applicant
And
SOUTH
AFRICAN POLICE
SERVICES
First Respondent
SAFETY
AND SECURITY SECTORAL
BARGAINING
COUNCIL
Second
Respondent
FJ
VAN DER MERWE
Third Respondent
Heard:
3 July 2015
Delivered:
3 July 2015
Edited:
25 August 2015
EX-TEMPORE
JUDGMENT
MALAN
AJ
[1]
The matter before me concerns an application in terms of
section
145
of the
Labour Relations Act, No. 66 of 1995
, to have a
condonation ruling issued by the second respondent reviewed and set
aside.
[2]
Ex facie
the
papers, the review application, was launched on 23 October 2012. This
appears to be common cause between the parties.
As a
preliminary objection, the first respondent has raised the issue that
the review application was delivered late. It
appears from the
ruling (which the applicant seeks to have reviewed) that it was
handed down on 23 July 2012 and transmitted by
fax transmission by
the second respondent to the parties on 24 July 2012. In this regard
reliance is placed on page 91 of the record,
which is the fax cover
sheet dealing with the condonation ruling. This issue was
specifically raised by the first respondent
in answer to the review
application. This allegation has not been dealt with by the
applicant.
[3]
I have no reason to doubt the inferences that the first respondent
seeks me to draw,
ex facie
at least, from the fax cover sheet. In the circumstances, it
appears, at least in my mind, that the documentation supports
the
first respondent’s contention that the ruling was sent to the
parties on 24 July 2012. Based on those facts, it
the review
application is indeed two (2) months late. There is no
application for condonation before me and also no explanation
by the
applicant in this regard.
[4]
I am mindful of the fact that the applicant, at that point in time,
was represented by attorneys other than the attorneys currently
representing him in this court, but despite the lapse of almost three
(3) years, no explanation or application for condonation
has been
offered to explain this delay or if it was a delay at all, or when
the condonation ruling came to the attention of the
applicant.
[5]
To add insult to injury, the record of the proceedings also appears
to have been delivered late, or rather, after it was delivered,
a
substantial amount of time of approximately sixteen (16) months
lapsed before the record was filed and the supplementary affidavit
in
that regard. Once, again, this delay is not explained by the
applicant. These issues were raised pertinently in
the
answering affidavit in the relevant paragraphs and is, despite that,
not dealt with by the applicant in its replying affidavit
and no
explanation whatsoever, or attempt at any explanation, is offered.
In the circumstances.
I
make the following order:
1.
The point
in
limine
regarding the late referral of
the review application is upheld.
2.
The review application is dismissed.
3.
There is no order as to costs.
_______________
MALAN AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE LABOUR COURT
APPEARANCES:
For
the Applicant: JM Gouws,Johan Gouws Attorneys
For
the Respondent: Adv. MJ Ramaepadi, instructed by the State Attorney