Empact Group (Pty) Ltd v Moni N.O. and Others

The applicant (Empact Group (Pty) Ltd) brought a review application to the Labour Court pertaining to a rescission ruling made by a CCMA Commissioner (First Respondent). The underlying matter concerned a default arbitration award in favor of the Third Respondent (Abongile Maneli). The applicant had applied for rescission of the default award at the CCMA. The Labour Court dismissed the review application on 5 November 2024 with no order as to costs. The applicant then brought an application for leave to appeal against the entire judgment and order. The applicant acknowledged in its founding affidavit that its rescission application was "terse" and ought to have contained a proper explanation for the default. The applicant argued that service of the CCMA notice of set down was defective because it never chose the e-mail address used for service, although it was the applicant's e-mail address.

• Whether there was a reasonable prospect that an appeal would succeed against the dismissal of the review application
• Whether the Commissioner's rescission ruling was reviewable based on the sparse explanation for default
• Whether service of the CCMA notice of set down was defective under CCMA rule 5(1)(c)
• Whether the Commissioner adequately considered the applicant's prospects of success in the rescission application
• Whether there were other compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

CCMA rule 5(1)(c) permits service of documents on a party's e-mail address without requiring the party to have specifically identified or chosen that address for service. The rule provides two alternatives: service on the party's e-mail address, or service on another alternative address that the party may choose. A rescission application must contain a proper explanation for default; a "terse" or sparse explanation will be insufficient to establish that an award was erroneously sought or made in the absence of a party, and will not render a rescission ruling reviewable. Leave to appeal will not be granted unless there is a reasonable prospect of success or other compelling reasons why the appeal should be heard.

The court indicated that even if the argument regarding the Commissioner's failure to adequately consider prospects of success had merit, ultimately nothing would turn on this point given the overall deficiencies in the applicant's case. The court noted that the further grounds of appeal pertaining to matters dealt with in the main judgment were "plainly unsustainable" without elaborating further on those specific grounds.

This case provides guidance on the interpretation and application of CCMA rule 5(1)(c) regarding service of documents, clarifying that service may be effected on a party's e-mail address without the party having specifically chosen that address for service. The case also reinforces the requirements for rescission applications under the CCMA rules, emphasizing the importance of providing proper and adequate explanations for default rather than terse or sparse explanations. It demonstrates the high threshold applicants must meet when seeking leave to appeal from Labour Court review judgments, particularly where the applicant has acknowledged deficiencies in its own case.