IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA , JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: JR 2650/18
In the matter between:
RAND AIRPORT MANAGEMENT COMPANY (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION First Respondent
COMMISSIONER BONGE MASOTE N.O. Second Respondent
SELLO SOUL MATLALA Third Respondent
Heard: 17 June 2025
Delivered: 18 June 2025
JUDGMENT
2
LENNOX, AJ
[1] This is a matter in which the Applicant seeks to have an archived file retrieved
from the archives. The application is opposed by the Third Respondent .
Background
[2] The present review application was launched in time by the Applicant on 7
December 2028, whereafter a notice of opposition w as filed on 11 December 2018
on behalf of Mr Matlala.
[3] The Applicant states that it filed the record of the arbitration proceedings on 6
March 2019 and sent same by registered mail to the Third Respondent on the same date.
[4] On 17 May 2019, the Third Respondent launched an application in terms of
what was Rule 11
1, seeking the dismissal of the review application.
[5] An answering affidavit was then filed by the Third Respondent on 28 June
2019.
[6] The Applicant filed its heads of argument on 10 July 2019, whereafter the
Third Respondent filed its heads of argument on 19 July 2019.
[7] On 29 January 2020, my brother , Coetzee AJ , granted an Order archiving the
review application in terms of paragraph 11.2.3 of the then P ractice Manual of this
Court
2 as the record was not filed within 60 days. There is an incorrect reference in
the papers before me in which it is suggested that the Order was granted on 4 August 2020. This is not the date on which the order was granted but the date on which the Order was stamped after having been typed.
1 GN 1665 of 1996: Rules for the Conduct of Proceedings in the Labour Court, repealed with effect
from July 2024.
2 Practice Manual of the Labour Court of South Africa, effective 2 April 2013, repealed with effect from
July 2024.
3
[8] The present application was then launched on 20 July 2021. The delay is
explained in the founding affidavit deposed to by Mr Maddern, the present attorney
for the Applicant as follows:
‘I am informed by Mr Coetzee, the airport manager of the Applicant, that the
Applicant was labouring under the impression that the matter was still pending before the above Honourable Court and that a date was yet to be allocated f or
the hearing …’
3
[9] Mr Maddern further states that the Applicant only became aware that this was
not the case when the Sheriff attended at the Applicant’s offices on 1 July 2021 to effect a notice of attachment.
[10] The Applicant specifically states that the record had to be filed by 11 March
2019, and that same was filed and mailed on 6 March 2019.
The Applicant’s case
[11] The Applicant submits that the Third Respondent was in possession of the
record when he filed his answering affidavit, and that reference to the record is made in the heads of argument filed on his behalf. It further argues that the record had
been filed within the prescribed 60 day period and that the Third Respondent was aware of this and as such the application should not have been archived.
The Third Respondent’s case
[12] The Third Respondent submits that the Applicant failed to submit to comply
with the then R ule 7A(6) , which then prejudiced the Third Respondent as the relief
which he was given could not be realised and that the review application could not
be expeditiously brought before this Court.
[13] Mr Leshaba, who appeared for Mr Matlala, drew my attention to two letters
sent to Mr Nel , to which no answer was received.
3 Para 9 thereof .
4
13.1 The first was sent on 29 April 2019 and enquired as to when the record
would be filed, as the time period had expired. In it, Mr Nel was cautioned that
an application in terms of R ule 11 might follow .
13.2 The second was sent on 9 September 2020 , asking Mr Nel to revert
with his client’s instruction in response to an earlier letter sent on 13 August
2020 advising that the file had been archived.
Analysis
[14] Annexure “RTM 3” to the founding affidavit herein reflects that the record was
indeed filed in Court on 6 March 2019 as evidenced by the Court’s stamp.
[15] An affidavit of service was deposed to by Mr Nel, the erstwhile attorney for the
Applicant, recording that the “Record Transcript” was sent by registered mail on 6
March 2019 to the Third Respondent’s attorneys and attached the certificate thereto.
This is in compliance with the former R ule 2(e) of this Court , which provides:
‘Service is proved in court in any one of the following ways —
…
(e) by producing the certificate issued by the post office for the posting of
the registered letter and an affidavit that the letter posted contained the
document concerned. ’
[16] Mr Leshaba correctly conceded that service had been proven.
[17] Accordingly, there was no reason for the application to have been archived as
service of the record took place within the required 60 day period.
[18] This is not a matter in which costs should be awarded.
[19] Accordingly, the following Order is made:
Order
1. The review application is reinstated.
2. There is no order as to costs.
5
M.A. L ennox
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Mr R Maddern
Wright Rose Innes Inc
For the Respondent: Mr G Leshaba
MM Mitti Attorneys