About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZALCJHB 174
|
|
Boshoff v Commission for Conciliation, Meditation and Arbitration and Others (JR968/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 174 (21 February 2017)
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not
reportable
Case
no: JR 968/15
In
the matter between
WILLEM HENDRICK BOSHOFF
and
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
S OOSTHUIZEN
N.O
PROFESSIONAL
INDUSTRIAL SERVICES
MAXAM
DANTEX CIVIL EXPLOSIVES
Chambers
21 February 2017
Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
Fourth Respondent
RULING:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
VAN
NIEKERK J
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgement
delivered by this court on 6 September 2016. In its judgment,
the
court dismissed an application to review and set aside an arbitration
award issued by the second respondent on 10 April 2015.
[2]
The judgment was delivered during the course of a pilot project in
which opposed motion applications awaiting hearing dates
were
assessed to determine whether they were ripe for enrolment. In
particular, and as the notice of set down in the pre-enrolment
proceedings makes clear, the court would deal with interlocutory
matters, including any applications for condonation for the late
filing of process and the like. In other words, litigants were made
aware that orders having final effect mud will be granted.
[3]
The present matter was enrolled for hearing on 30 August 2016.
It transpired at the hearing that on the face of it, the
review
application had been filed outside of the statutory time limit. The
applicant’s attention was drawn to this fact and
he was
afforded an opportunity to establish that the application was indeed
filed timeously. He failed to do so. In the absence
of any proof that
the application had been filed within the prescribed time limit, the
court dismissed the application on the basis
that it had no
jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
[4]
The first ground on which leave to appeal is sought is that the court
erred in finding that the application was filed on 18
August 2015.
This is correct. The date stamp on the date stamp fixed by the
registrar reflects that the application was filed on
14 August 2015.
However, this does not advance the applicant’s case and the
fact remains that the application was filed well
out of time.
[5]
The second ground for review is that the court erred in finding that
the ‘award’ had been filed outside of the time
limit.
Again, the applicant is correct in pointing out what is no more than
a typographical error in paragraph 3 of the judgment.
It is clear
from the context of that ‘award’ ought to have read
‘application’. The error to which the applicant
draws
attention fails to advance his case and does not establish any ground
on which leave to appeal ought to be granted.
[6]
To the extent that the applicant now appears to contend that he
received the award under review only on 26 June 2015, he has
failed
to provide any evidence that this is so. However, even if the
applicant did in fact receive the award on 26 June, the application
was nevertheless filed outside of the 6-week time limit.
In my view, there is no merit in the
application for leave to appeal.
I make the following order:
1. The application
for leave to appeal is dismissed.
ANDRÉ
VAN NIEKERK
JUDGE
OF THE LABOUR COURT