About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZALCCT 15
|
|
DETAWU obo Bomwana and Others v Unitrans Passenger (Pty) Ltd ta Greyhound (C468/2021) [2026] ZALCCT 15 (3 February 2026)
THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
Not Reportable
Case
No:
C468/2021
In
the matter between:
DETAWU
o.b.o. Mavandla Bomwana and 22 Others
First Applicant
ANDILE
GQOTSO and 29 Others
Second Applicant
and
Unitrans
Passenger (PTY) Ltd t/a
Greyhound
Respondent
In
re
the action between:
DETAWU
o.b.o. Mavandla Bomwana and 22 Others
Applicant
and
Unitrans
Passenger (PTY) Ltd t/a Greyhound
Respondent
Heard
:
3 February 2026
Delivered
:
3 February 2026
JUDGMENT
JACOBS AJ
Introduction
[1]
This is a joinder application brought by 30 individuals who have been
cited as the Second Applicant.
[2]
The Second Applicants did not appear in court.
[3]
The Second Applicants seek an order:
3.1
Allowing the 30 individuals cited as the Second Applicant to be
joined to the pending dispute
between the First Applicant and the
Respondent;
3.2
Allowing Mr Andile Gqotso to act on behalf of the 30 individuals
cited as the Second Applicant;
3.3
Condoning the Second Applicant’s late entering as party to the
proceedings; and
3.4
Costs if the application is opposed.
[4]
The First Applicant had filed a notice stating its intention to abide
by the Court’s ruling.
[5]
The Respondent opposed the application and also raised a
jurisdictional objection based on the Second Applicant’s
apparent failure to refer a dispute to the CCMA. The Respondent also
pleaded that the Second Applicant’s claim would amount
to a
debt which would have prescribed ito the Prescription Act.
Historical
context
[6]
Respondent initiated a retrenchment process and eventually, dismissed
a number of employees for operational reasons in
April 2021.
[7]
An unfair dismissal dispute was referred to the CCMA by the First
Applicant (DETAWU) on or about 21 May 2021. The dispute
was not
resolved at conciliation, and the requisite certificate was issued on
3 June 2021.
[8]
The Second Applicant’s list of individual applicants, curiously
show that four of the individuals comprising the
Second Applicant
were apparently also members of DETAWU at the time of the
retrenchments. These individuals are not listed as members
represented by DETAWU as the Applicant in this matter. There is no
explanation why these individuals were not part of the initial
referral to the CCMA and these proceedings.
[9]
The First Applicant’s referral to this court was made on 9
September 2021, a few days late. Since then, the short
delay was
condoned on 20 March 2025 and some amendments and additions have been
made to the Statement of Case and Statement of
Response that were
filed by the parties. A pre-trial minute was filed, and the matter
appear to be trial-ready.
[10]
This joinder application was launched on or about 19 June 2025, more
than four years after the dismissals for operational
reasons, and
three years after the filing of the pre-trial minute.
[11]
Rule 52 of the rules for this court allows for a joinder to be made
at any time before judgment is delivered. The Second
Applicant seeks
condonation for late bringing of the joinder application. Although
the failure to pursue the matter for four years
invite explanation
from the Second Applicant, there seems to be no time constraints
relevant to the timing of a joinder application.
[12]
The Second Applicant contends that joinder is appropriate because the
relief they seek is identical to that sought by
the First Applicant.
It is also suggested that the Respondent will not suffer any
prejudice if joinder is allowed.
Evaluation
[13]
The condonation application and the joinder application can only be
considered if the court has jurisdiction to deal
with the matter at
all.
[14]
The application for Mr Andile Gqotso to act on behalf of the 30
individuals who comprise the Second Applicant cannot
be allowed.
Section 161 LRA lists the parties who can represent a litigant or
litigants before this court and this court is bound
by the provisions
of sec 161. Mr Gqotso is not a person referred to in sec 161 (a) to
(e). He can appear in person on his own behalf,
and he can be a
deponent to affidavits and a witness at trial. He cannot represent
others.
[15]
Andre Reed Attorneys had signed and filed the papers on behalf of the
Second Applicant in this application. In par 48
of the founding
affidavit by Mr Gqotso in joinder application, he states that the
Second Applicants’ attorneys have agreed
to represent them at a
reduced fee on semi-pro-bono basis. The papers were also signed by
Andre Reed Attorneys as representatives
for the Second Applicant.
[16]
There are attorneys on record for the Second Applicant. Mr Gqotso may
not represent others before this court.
[17]
The Second Applicant bears the onus to show that the court has
jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Second Applicant
has not pleaded
or shown that a dispute was referred to the CCMA by or on behalf of
the individuals who comprise the Second Applicant.
[18]
A referral
to conciliation is mandatory.
[1]
Without such a referral, this court will not have the jurisdiction to
deal with a matter.
[19]
In the absence of jurisdiction, the issue concerning prescription has
become moot.
[20]
Mr Niewoudt argued that the matter stands to be dismissed, and not
merely struck from the roll. He pointed out that other
parties will
be prejudiced by the matter not being disposed of, especially in
light of the hopelessness of the merits. This court
agrees.
[21]
In the result, the following order is made:
Order
1.
The
application for joinder is dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction.
2.
There
is no order as to costs.
W
Jacobs
Acting
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
For the First
Applicant:
- No Appearances
Instructed
by:
- Bernadt Vukic Potash & Getz Attorneys
For the Second
Applicant:
- No Appearances
Instructed
by:
- Andre Reed Attorneys
For
the Respondent:
-
Adv H Nieuwoudt
Instructed
by:
- Thomson Wilks Attorneys
[1]
See:
Industrial
Oleo Chemical Products v National Union of Metalworkers of South
Africa and Others
(DA05/2023)
[2024] ZALAC 53
;
[2025] 1 BLLR 1
(LAC); (2025) 46 ILJ
328 (LAC) (23 October 2024);
National
Union of Metalworkers of South African obo Members v SAA Technical
SOC
Ltd
[2024] ZALAC 41)