Lekabane Gilford Matsekoleng v Synergy World Logistics (Pty) Ltd

The applicant, employed by the respondent as a driver since October 2007, was dismissed in May/June 2020 during the Covid-19 lockdown after receiving a text message indicating termination due to economic circumstances. He referred an unfair dismissal dispute under the Labour Relations Act to the Labour Court in August 2020. After the statement of response was filed in October 2020, no further steps were taken, and the matter was archived in April 2021 under item 16 of the then applicable Practice Manual. The applicant had engaged Denga Incorporated as his attorneys. A candidate legal practitioner at the firm handled the matter without proper supervision, resulting in a delay of approximately 23 months before a retrieval (revival) application was launched in March 2023. The applicant made periodic enquiries about his case. The retrieval application was opposed. The Court also raised concerns about the conduct of Denga Incorporated and called upon it to explain why punitive cost and fee-related orders should not be made against it.

The file was retrieved from the archives and the applicant was permitted to proceed with his unfair dismissal referral. The parties were directed to convene a pre-trial conference and prepare a pre-trial minute. Denga Incorporated was ordered to pay the respondent’s actual disbursements incurred in opposing the retrieval application, to pay counsel’s fees from its own account, to forfeit all fees charged to the applicant from inception to 22 January 2025, and to repay any monies already paid by the applicant within 10 days.

The case underscores the Labour Court’s approach to retrieval applications as condonation applications governed by the interests of justice. It affirms that litigants should not be non-suited due to the serious negligence of their legal representatives, particularly where they have shown ongoing interest in asserting their rights. The judgment is also significant for its strong stance on attorney accountability, supervision of candidate legal practitioners, and the Court’s willingness to make punitive cost and fee forfeiture orders directly against attorneys to protect vulnerable litigants and uphold professional standards.