THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Case no: JR 854/2023
In the matter between:
THUNGELA OPERATIONS (PTY) LIMITED Applicant
and
SIBUSISO MAHLANGU Respondent
Heard: 30 July 2026
Delivered: on 30 July 2026
Summary: Review application — non-compliance with Rule 7A of the Rules of this Court and
clause 11.2 of the Practice Manual — no application for reinstatement nor condonation
brought by the applicant — matter postponed for the applicant to bring a substantive
application — costs reserved.
ORDER, AND REASONS FOR ORDER
MAHOMED, AJ
Background
(1) Reportable: No
(2) Of interest to other Judges: Yes/No
(3) Revised
___________ ______________
Signature Date
1
[1] This review application, under the above case number, was enrolled for
hearing before me today. In preparing for the matter, I observed, mero motu,
that there had been non-compliance with the notice requirements of Rules 7A
of the Rules of this Court, read with clause 11.2 of the Practice Manual of this
Court applicable to matters instituted prior to 2024, as this matter was.
The Practice Manual and the archiving of the application
[2] Clause 11.2 of the Practice Manual requires an applicant in review
proceedings to ensure that all necessary papers are filed, and the registrar
notified in writing that the matter is ripe for allocation for hearing, within twelve
months of the date on which the application was launched. Where an
applicant fails to comply, the application is automatically archived and is
regarded as lapsed, unless and until an application is brought, on good cause
shown, for its reinstatement, alternatively for condonation of the non-
compliance. The Practice Manual is not a mere administrative guideline: it has
binding force, and exists to give effect to the Rules of this Court and to the
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
1.
[3] No application for reinstatement from the archiv ing, and no application for
condonation, has been brought by the Applicant. In those circumstances, the
review application stands archived, and this Court is, for as long as that status
persists, without a properly constituted application before it on which it could
pronounce on the merits. Archiving is not a mere administrative act; it is a
status which an application acquires automatically upon non- compliance with
clause 11.2, and it falls to the defaulting party to justify why the matter should
be reinstated
2.
Jurisdiction and the appropriate course
[4] It follows that, at present, I am without jurisdiction to determine this matter on
its merits.
1 See Samuels v Old Mutual Bank [2017] 7 BLLR 681 (LAC); (2017) 38 ILJ 1790 (LAC); Toyota SA
1 See Samuels v Old Mutual Bank [2017] 7 BLLR 681 (LAC); (2017) 38 ILJ 1790 (LAC); Toyota SA
Motors (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and Others [2015] ZACC 40; (2016) 37 ILJ 313 (CC).
2 See E Tradex (Pty) Ltd t/a Global Trade Solution v Finch N.O. and Others [2022] ZALAC 106;
(2022) 43 ILJ 2727 (LAC); Macsteel Trading Wadeville v Van der Merwe N.O. and Others [2018]
ZALAC 50; (2019) 40 ILJ 798 (LAC); Greater Taung Local Municipality v South African Local
Government Bargaining Council and Others [2023] ZALAC 1; (2023) 44 ILJ 761 (LAC).
2
[5] That is not, however, the end of the enquiry. Simply striking the matter from
the roll, without more, would afford the Applicant an opportunity to regularise
its position, and would equally prejudice the Respondent, who has an interest
in the finality — one way or the other — of proceedings that have already
been outstanding for a considerable period. A postponement, coupled with a
direction that the necessary substantive application be brought within a
defined timeframe, better serves the interests of both parties, and accords
with the practical, fairness -oriented approach reflected in the authorities
referred to above.
[6] In the result, I make the following order:
Order
1. The matter is postponed to my roll of 26 August 2026.
2. The Applicant is directed to bring a substantive application for the
reinstatement of the review application from the archive, alternatively for
condonation of its non- compliance with clause 11.2 of the Practice Manual
and Rules 7A of the Rules of this Court.
3. All papers in that application, including any answering and replying affidavits,
are to be filed with this Court by no later than 17 August 2026, for hearing on
26 August 2026.
4. The costs of the application for Review together with today's appearance, and
the costs of the application to be brought pursuant to paragraph 2 above, are
reserved for determination at the hearing on 26 August 2026.
MAHOMED, AJ
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances
3
For the Applicant: Mr. Du Plessis of PINSENT MASONS SOUTH
AFRICA INC
Instructed by: PINSENT MASONS SOUTH AFRICA INC
For the Respondent: Mr. Xongotela Mbhiza
Instructed by: Seleka Attorneys Inc