Siyakha Cleaning Services CC v Ndlanga (C468/01) [2002] ZALC 13; [2002] 5 BLLR 482 (LC) (13 February 2002)

55 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Rescission of order — Application to rescind order of CCMA made an order of the Court — Applicant not receiving notice of arbitration hearing — Court finding that applicant had reasonable prospects of success and was not in wilful default — Order rescinded in interests of justice, with directions for further proceedings.

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(HELD AT CAPE TOWN)
CASE NO: C468/01
13­2­2002
In the matter between:
SIYAKHA CLEANING SERVICES CC Applicant
and
G N NDLANGA Respondent
______________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
______________________________________________________
LANDMAN J:
1. Siyakha Cleaning Service CC applies to rescind an order granted by  
Cheadle   AJ   on   11   September   2001   making   an   order   of   the  
Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration ("the CCMA")

an order of this Court.   The application is opposed.
2. Siyhaka   did   not   receive   notice   of   the   referral   of   the   dispute   for  
arbitration   by   the   CCMA   and   consequently   did   not   attend   the  
hearing.   Had Siyhaka attended the hearing it would have had, on  
the facts set out in the founding affidavit, a reasonable prospect of  
success.  Siyhaka had earlier received notification of the conciliation  
process but only after it had transpired.   The notice had been sent to  
Siyhaka's previous address.  Siyhaka learnt of the arbitration award  
when payment of the amount stipulated in the award was demanded  
by Ms Ndlanga's attorneys.   Siyhaka immediately attempted to have  
the award rescinded. 
3. The   application   for   rescission   was   lodged   with   the   CCMA   on   15  
March 2001.   A copy of that application, which was in fact a letter,  
was not served on the employee Ms Ndlanga. The application itself  
did not comply with the CCMA's rules.     The CCMA was aware of  
these deficiencies, as appears from e­mail correspondence, but did  
not   inform   Siyhaka   about   them   until   22   October;   some   10   days  
before the rescission hearing was scheduled.   Siyhaka received the

notice   of   application   to   make   the   award   an   order   of   this   Court,  
however, the secretary who received it and who has since left the  
employment   of   Siyhaka,   merely   filed   the   papers   away.       This,   of  
course, is not satisfactory but it does explain why Siyhaka did not  
apply   to   Court   for   a   stay   of   the   award   pending   the   rescission  
application.
4. Siyhaka   seeks  to   rescind   the   order  of   this  Court  in  terms   of  Rule  
16A(1)(a)(i)   on   the   grounds   that   the   order   had   been   granted  
erroneously.     I   am   of   the   opinion   that   the   order   was   not   granted  
erroneously as an application to the CCMA to rescind an award does  
not constitute  lis pendens .   Siyhaka was obliged to apply to Court to  
stay the execution of the award.   Ms Ndlanga's attorneys had not  
received a copy of the application for rescission and therefore they  
were   not   at   fault   in   not   informing   the   Court   about   any   possible  
rescission.  They clearly could not do this as they were not aware of  
it.  However, the order was granted in the absence of Siyhaka, who  
was not in wilful default, who has prospects of success and it would  
be in the interests of justice that the dispute be properly ventilated.   I  
propose   to   rescind   the   order.     Ms   Ndlanga's   opposition   to   the

application  was not unreasonable,  having  regard  to the manner  in  
which Siyhaka dealt with the application for rescission and the way in  
which it dealt with the notice of motion.
5. In the result:
1. The order of this Court dated 14 September 2001 is rescinded.
2. The applicant in this application, Siyhaka Cleaning Services CC, is
ordered to file its original application for rescission on the
respondent in this application, Ms G N Ndlanga, together with an
affidavit. This is to be done within 10 days. If this is not done Ms
Ndlanga, the respondent in this matter, may re-enrol the
application to make the award an order of Court.
3. The applicant in this application, Siyhaka Cleaning Services CC, is
ordered to pay Ms Ndlanga’s costs of opposition.
Signed   and   dated   at   BRAAMFONTEIN   this   26 th  day   of   February  
2002.
_______________
AA Landman
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa