THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
Case no: C234/2023
In the matter between:
MIZINGOU MIZASSE, ROMEO BOUTOTO Applicant
and
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND
ARBTRATION First Respondent
ANDRÉ SIEBERT N.O. Second Respondent
FLM SA (PTY) LTD T/A FLM PINEHURST Third Respondent
Heard: 9 September 2026
Delivered: 11 September 2026
Summary: (Review application – jurisdiction is conferred on this Court in terms
of section 145 of the LRA - a review application filed outside of the time periods
without a condonation application means that the Court is divested of
jurisdiction)
JUDGMENT
(1) Reportable Yes/No
(2) Of interest to other Judges: Yes/No
(3) Revised
____________ ______________
Signature Date
11 SEPTEMBER 2026
2
MAY, AJ
Introduction
[1] The Applicant seeks to review and set aside an arbitration award issued by the
Second Respondent (commissioner) on 12 April 2023 under the auspices of
the First Respondent, the commissioner found that the Applicant was fairly
dismissed.
[2] The Third Respondent opposed the review and raised the objection that the
service of the review was defective, was filed late and condonation was not
sought in the pleadings nor addressed after the failure to apply for condonation
was raised.
Condonation
[3] A review application can only be considered properly brought once it was both
served and filed in Court (delivered).
[4] The time limit of six weeks, as contemplated by section 145(1) of the Labour
Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA), applies from when the Applicant received the
award. It does not appear to be in dispute that the award was served on the
parties on the date of the award, 12 April 2023. The review application should
have been submitted on or before 24 May 2023. It was only served on the
Respondents by registered mail on 9 June 2023. It is not accompanied by a
condonation application and is therefore not properly before this Court.
[5] Where a review is filed late, this Court requires a condonation application to be
considered and granted before the review can be heard. A condonation
application must be brought on motion and supported by an affidavit. absent
such an application, the Court is divested of jurisdiction.
[6] In conclusion, the Applicant’s review application has been brought out of time
without a proper application for condonation.
■
' V
3
[7] It is trite that the LRA must be interpreted purposively to give effect to an
expeditious resolution of labour disputes 1. In light of this obligation, this Court
is mindful of avoiding permanently closing the door on the Applicant. Nothing
prevents the Applicant from making application for condonation at this stage
and he is urged to do so without further delay.
[8] Whilst the matter was opposed by the Third Respondent, there was no
appearance when the matter was called. For this reason, it is appropriate that
no order as to costs be made.
[9] In the premise the following order is made:
Order
1. The Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the review application,
and the application is struck from the roll.
2. No order as to costs.
_____________________
C. May
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
For the Applicant : Applicant in person
For the respondent : No appearance
1 Bracks NO and Another v Rand Water and Another (JA 2/08) [2010] ZALAC 4; (2010) 31 ILJ 897
(LAC); [2010] 8 BLLR 795 (LAC) at para 11.
Bracks supra at para 11.
=~
0