NUMSA obo Dlamini v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR453/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 27 (6 February 2018)

30 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Review application — Delay in prosecution — Applicant's failure to file record within prescribed time limits — Review application deemed withdrawn due to inaction — Rule 11 application granted, dismissing the review application. The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) filed a review application on 18 March 2015 but failed to file the necessary record by the deadline of 25 January 2016, resulting in excessive delay. The third respondent's Rule 11 application to dismiss the review was granted, with no order as to costs.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZALCJHB 27
|

|

NUMSA obo Dlamini v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR453/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 27 (6 February 2018)

IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Case no: JR 453-15
Not
Reportable
In
the matter between:
NUMSA
obo INNOCENT VUSI DLAMINI

Applicant
and
COMMISSION
FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION
AND
ARBITRATION

First Respondent
SELLO
MAPHAKI
N. O
Second Respondent
ESKOM
HOLDINGS (SOC) LTD (LETHABO)

Third Respondent
Heard:
6 February 2018
Delivered:
6 February 2018
EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT
WHITCHER, J:
[1]
This
is a Rule 11 application by the third respondent to dismiss the
review application filed by applicant, the National Union of

Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA). For the reasons that follow the
application is granted.
[2]
The
rule 11 application was filed on 21 November 2017. The review
application was filed more than two years ago, on 18 March 2015.
The
Commission Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) filed the
Rule 7A (3) in relation to the record two years ago, on

25 November 2015.
[3]
In
terms of clause 11.2.2 of the Practice Manual, the applicant ought to
have filed the record by 25 January 2016, that is, more
than 19
months ago.
[4]
In
terms of the failure to do so and clause 11.2.3 of the Practice
Manual, the review application is deemed to have been withdrawn
on or
about February 2016, that is 10 months ago.
[5]
On
or about 13 and 28 September 2017, the third respondent placed the
applicant on terms regarding the review and essentially warned
them
that a rule 11 application could be anticipated. There was no
meaningful response to same.
Conclusion
[6]
The
applicant dismally failed to take active steps to prosecute its
review application and the delay is excessive.
Order
[7]
In the
premises, the following order is made:
1.
The Rule 11
application is granted.
2.
The review
application filed on 18 March 2015 by the applicant, NUMSA is
dismissed.
3.
There is no
order as to costs.
__________________________
B. Whitcher
Judge
of the Labour Court of South Africa
APPEARANCES:
For
the third respondent:

Adv. P.M.W Botha
Instructed
by:

Moshoana Mabena Mogane Inc
For
the applicant:

No appearance