THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

Not Reportable
Case no: JR646/23

In the matter between:
PIKITUP (SOC) LTD Applicant
and

PUMLA MOKELE First Respondent

SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT BARGAINING COUNCIL Second Respondent

NATASHA MONI NO Third Respondent
Heard: 20 February 2025
Delivered: 2 May 2025
Summary : Application for condonation in terms of the Practice Manual.
Application to compel re s ecurity under section 145( 7) of the LRA.


JUDGMENT

DANIELS J
2


Introduction

[1] There are three applications before the Court. The first is to extend the
60-day period in clause 11.2.3 of the Practice Manual. The second is to
condone non- compliance with the 60 day period in clause 11.2.3 of the Practice
Manual. The third is brought by the first respondent to compel the applicant to
provide security, as contemplated in section 145(8) of the LRA.
Material facts
[2] The first respondent was dismissed by the applicant on 12 August 2021
for alleged misconduct. She referred a dispute to the South African Local Government Bargaining Council (the “Council”) for conciliation, and arbitration. When conciliation failed, the Council appointed the third respondent to arbitrate the dispute.
[3] On or about 6 March 2023, the third respondent issued an arbitration
award in which she found that the dismissal ( of the first respondent) was both
procedurally and substantively unfair. The applicant was required, in terms of the award, to reinstate the first respondent, retrospectively, and to pay her nineteen months ’ salary as backpay.
[4] On 14 April 2023, the applicant launched an application to review and set
aside the arbitration award.
[5] On 28 April 2023, the r egistrar informed the applicant that the record of
the arbitration proceedings had been filed. However, upon uplifting the record,
the applicant discovered that the record was incomplete because certain recordings were missing .
[6] On 8 June 2023, the applicant’s attorneys contacted the first
respondent’s attorneys and requested an extension of time to file the record. The attorneys refused to grant the indulgence.
3


[7] On 20 June 2023, the r egistrar advised the applicant that the missing
part of record had been filed. However, the applicant discovered that the compact disc (which allegedly contained the missing audio recordings) was
damaged and could not be accessed.
[8] On 26 June 2023, the r egistrar informed the applicant that yet another
compact disc had been filed. Once again, the applicant found that it could not
access the record from the compact disc .
[9] On 14 July 2023, the applicant attended at the Bargaining Council and
retrieved the missing record, this time with a USB drive. The record was delivered to the transcribers.
[10] On 27 July 2023, the applicant launched an application in which it sought
an extension of time, beyond the sixty day period prescribed by clause 11.2.3 of
the Practice Manual, to file the record.
[11] On 3 May 2024, the applicant launched a further application in terms of
which it sought condonation for non- compliance with clause 11.2.7 of the
Practice Manual.
[12] The applicant filed the arbitration record on 2 October 2023.

Condonation application
[13] Rule 7A(5) requires the r egistrar to make available to the applicant “the
record”. Thereafter, the applicant is required to prepare the record, and deliver
those parts of the record upon which it relies. In my view, it is plain from the
language used, as well as the context, that the words “the record”, in Rule 7A(5), relate to the full and complete record. I cannot fathom how an applicant
can be required to deliver the record, within 60 days, in circumstances where the complete record has not been filed.

4

[14] It is trite that the 60- day period, in clause 11.2.3 of the Practice Manual,
is calculated from the date on which the applicant is advised by the r egistrar
that the record has been filed.1

[15] The notice issued by the r egistrar , in terms of Rule 7A(5), on 28 April
2023, related to an incomplete record. The notices issued on 20 and 26 June, purported to contain the complete record, or the missing part of the record, but
did not. In the circumstances, the complete record was, in fact, not filed by the
Council in a manner accessible to the applicant .
[16] In light of the above, the applicant requires no condonation. The record
has not been filed late, and the review application has not been deemed to have lapsed. However, if I am incorrect in this regard, the application for extension
must be granted. T he applicant has diligently prosecuted the review application,
and taken the necessary steps to proceed with it in timely and expeditious
manner.

Non-compliance with clause 11.2.7
[17] Clause 11.2.7 states that an applicant in a review application is required
to ensure that “all the necessary papers ” in the review are filed within twelve
months of the date of the launch of the application and the registrar is informed in writing that the application may be enrolled for hearing. Where this time limit is not complied with, the application will be archived and be regarded as lapsed.
In this matter, the Registrar has not archived the application. As previously mentioned, I am satisfied that the applicant diligently prosecuted the review application and took all the steps to proceed with the application in timely and expeditious manner. In the circumstances, condonation is granted for non-compliance with clause 11.2.7.

Application to compel security


1 SA Social Security Agency v Hartley & others (2023) 44 ILJ 1334 (LC) at para 84
5

[18] The first respondent brings its own application to compel the applicant to
furnish security. In my view, the application is misconceived. There is no stand
alone requirement that security must be provided by an applicant in a review. The failure to provide security impacts only on whether the enforcement of the award is stayed, it being trite that an application to review and set aside an arbitration award does not stay the enforcement of the award.
2

[19] If the applicant seeks to stay the enforcement of the award, he or she
may bring an application to stay the enforcement of the award under section
145(3) , or provide security in accordance with section 145(7) .

[20] In the circumstances, the application to compel the applicant to provide
security, is dismissed.

Costs
[21] In labour disputes, costs do not follow the result. There are no
exceptional circumstances which requires a cost order.

Conclusion
[22] In the result, for the reasons set out above, I make the following order:
22.1 The application brought under JR646/23 is not deemed withdrawn
in terms of clause 11.2.3 of the Practice Manual; 22.2 The applicant is granted condonation for non- compliance with
clause 11.2.7 of the Practice Manual; 22.3 The Registrar is directed to enrol the review application for
hearing on the opposed motion roll;
22.4 The application to compel the furnishing of security in terms of
section 145(7) is dismissed; 22.5 There is no order as to costs.

2 Rustenburg Local Municipality v SALGBC and others [2017] 11 BLLR 1161 (LC) at para 12
6


Reynaud Daniels
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa

Appearances:

For the Applicant :
Mr KT Mokatla
MMMG Attorneys

For the First Respondent :
Mr I Mureriwa
Machingura Attorneys