Sneller Verbatim/HVDM
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JR1160/02
2003-02-07
In the matter between
S MORERWA Applicant
and
THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION 1st Respondent
2nd Respondent
MR PRICE, A DIVISION OF MR PRICE
3rd Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
_______________________________________________________________
_
REVELAS J:
1. This is an application in which the applicant applied to
review and set aside a ruling made by the second
respondent, a commissioner of the Commission for
Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (“the CCMA”),
refusing to condone the late referral of the applicant’s
dismissal dispute to the CCMA.
2. The applicant's referral was seven and a half weeks out
of time. The explanation given by the applicant to the
commissioner at the time, when he brought the
application, where the respondent was not present, was
that he did not know that there was a 30 day time period
and furthermore that he did not have money to send a fax
or referral to the CCMA.
3. In his grounds of review, which lacks any averments which
would support a review application, and read more like an
appeal, he leads new evidence stating that he handed the
matter over to his attorneys who was then lax in
processing the matter. He could provide no proof that an
attorney was acting on his behalf, neith has he stated
any facts to that effect in his grounds of review.
4. I have to consider that the applicant has given two
conflicting versions. One to the court and another to the
CCMA. In one of the applications he has been untruthful.
He has put forward no cogent grounds upon which I could
come to the conclusion that the ruling should be
interfered with. Commissioners of the CCMA are enjoined
to deal with matters expeditiously. Delays as excessive
as this one may be refused by a commissioner if he or she
has exercised his or her discretion properly, which the
arbitrator appears to have done in this matter.
5. Accordingly the application for review is dismissed.
6. In so far as costs is concerned the applicant's case was
based on an untruthful version and on that basis I agree
with counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent
that I should make a cost order against the applicant.
7. In the circumstances the order reads as follows:
8. The application for review is dismissed.
9. The applicant is to pay the third respondent's costs for
this application.
_______________
_
E. Revelas
PRESIDING OFFICER : REVELAS J
ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT :
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT :