Sneller Verbatim/JduP
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JR643/01
2003.03.19
In the matter between
P MUTISE Applicant
and
CLOVER S A (PTY) LIMITED Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
EX TEMPORE
_______________________________________________________________
_
REVELAS, J:
1. In this matter the applicant, represented by a firm
called Moosa, Jeremiah & Associates, from Marshalltown,
Johannesburg, has brought an application for the review
of an arbitration award made by a commissioner of the
Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
(“the CCMA”), Ms Tohlang.
2. The applicant attended the arbitration proceedings,
with a Mr Nzuza who insisted on representing him. The
matter related to applicant's conduct, and the
arbitrator was of the view that the matter was not
complex, and disallowed representation.
1. 1. 3. The only factor which Mr Nzuza apparently asked
the arbitrator was to consider, when exercising her
discretion, is that the matter is of public interest
since Pick 'n Pay was also involved in the matter. The
arbitrator, after ruling that legal representation
would not be allowed, gave the applicant an opportunity
to consult with Mr Nzuza, his representative. Upon
their return the applicant said that he was not
proceeding with the matter, and on the advice of his
attorney walked out of the arbitration venue.
4. Mr Nzuza did not serve the applicant well. The papers
purporting to support this purporting to support this
application are extremely poor. Several postponements
were occasioned by Mr Nzuza or his firm on previous
occasions. Mr Nzuza has also signed the Notice of
Motion in these proceedings and, in a letter received
from the firm representing the applicant. It appears
that Mr Nzuza is currently still in charge of the
matter. In the letter sent to the court and to the
respondent's attorneys the applicant's attorneys sought
a further postponement.
5. The applicant was accompanied to court by a person who
has no right of appearance. I therefore dealt with the
matter in the normal course, and refused the
application for postponement brought by the applicant’s
attorneys in a letter since they did not appear before
me themselves.
1. 6. The applicant, now in person and through an
interpreter, brought an application for a postponement
to seek assistance from a union representative. In
other words, he seeks new representation and no longer
wishes to rely on the advice of his attorneys.The
application for a postponement was opposed by the
respondent, who has unfortunately been compelled to
attend these court proceedings only to find that the
matter had been postponed once again.
7. This postponement has been solely caused by the conduct
of the applicant's erstwhile attorneys, who are still
his attorneys of record since no notice of withdrawal
has been filed.
8. In the circumstances and in fairness to the applicant,
I believe that I should exercise my discretion and
grant the applicant an opportunity to seek new
representation. However, I have to take note of the
concerns of the respondents who have incurred legal
costs in this matter, and unnecessarily so, solely
through the behaviour of the applicant's attorneys of
record. In my view, this firm, Moosa, Jeremiah &
Associates Inc, should bear the wasted costs of today.
9. In the circumstances I make the following order:
1. The matter is postponed sine die .
2. The applicant's attorneys of record, Moosa, Jeremiah &
Associates Inc, are to pay the wasted costs incurred on
a scale as between party and party but de bonis
propriis.
__________________
E. Revelas