Julian Marure Ramadie and Nkwaila Kwakwa v The Department of Health: Mpumalanga and Others

The Applicants, both employed as social workers, referred an unfair labour practice dispute under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act concerning the interpretation and application of Resolution 1 of 2009 of the Occupational Specific Dispensation (OSD) for Social Workers. They sought reinstatement of a 1 July 2008 pay progression increase. The arbitration hearing was set for 31 October 2014. Commissioner Gumede found that the First Respondent (Department of Health: Mpumalanga) had correctly implemented the OSD and issued an award dismissing the claim. The First Applicant lodged a rescission application alleging the hearing occurred in her absence on 30 October 2014 instead of 31 October 2014. The Third Respondent dismissed the rescission application on 10 July 2015, finding that documentary evidence confirmed the hearing took place on 31 October 2014 as scheduled. The Applicants filed a review application on 12 August 2016, approximately one year after the rescission ruling. The Applicants failed to file the complete arbitration record within the prescribed 60-day period, despite a court order to do so by 27 September 2018. The transcribed records were only filed on 15 July 2019, some 10 months after the court order deadline. No answering affidavit was filed by the First Respondent. The Applicants failed to seek condonation for the late filing of records or to apply for revival of the archived application.

• Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to hear a review application that has lapsed and been archived due to non-compliance with the Practice Manual
• Whether the Applicants' failure to file the arbitration record within the prescribed 60-day period resulted in the review application being deemed withdrawn
• Whether the Applicants were required to bring a substantive application for revival of the archived review application
• Whether condonation should be granted for the excessive delays in prosecuting the review application
• Whether costs should be awarded against the Applicants

1. The review application under case number JR1346/2016 has lapsed and been archived in terms of the Practice Manual. 2. The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the review application. 3. The Applicants' application is struck from the roll. 4. The Applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application.

A review application that has lapsed and been archived due to failure to comply with the time limits set out in the Labour Court Practice Manual cannot be heard by the Labour Court unless a substantive application for revival is brought and succeeds. Where an applicant in a review application fails to file the arbitration record within the prescribed 60-day period under clause 11.2.2 of the Practice Manual, and fails to seek consent from the respondent or the court for an extension of time as required by clause 11.2.3, the application is deemed withdrawn. A review application that is not completed within 12 months of its launch date, as required by clause 11.2.7, lapses and is archived unless good cause is shown. In the absence of a proper condonation application explaining delays for the entire period and a substantive application for revival, the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to determine the review application. The provisions of the Practice Manual are binding and must be adhered to in order to promote the statutory imperative of expeditious dispute resolution in labour matters.

Deane AJ made several observations about the conduct of litigants and legal practitioners who fail to comply with the Practice Manual. The judge noted that courts' desire to act fairly has sometimes created a culture where litigants and their legal representatives expect indulgence despite non-compliance with procedural rules. The judge emphasized that "at some point one has to say – enough is enough" and that fairness to the review applicant must sometimes "sit in the back seat" when there has been flagrant violation of the rules. The court commented that pursuit of this particular application was "ill-advised" and that the Applicants' conduct demonstrated a "flagrant disregard for the Rules of this court." The judge observed that the Practice Manual has been in effect for six years and clearly states that review applications are urgent and must be completed within 12 months, yet litigants continue to fail to comply. The court expressed the view that this kind of conduct "continues to thrive" because courts are often reluctant to dismiss matters on procedural grounds, but emphasized that proper administration of justice requires that procedural failures have consequences. The judge also quoted with approval the sentiment from Toyota SA Motors that "excessive delays in litigation may induce a reasonable belief, especially on the part of a successful litigant, that the order or award had become unassailable" and that such delays unnecessarily clog up the court roll and create uncertainty.

This case reinforces the binding nature of the Labour Court Practice Manual and the importance of strict compliance with time limits in review applications. It emphasizes that review applications are urgent by nature and must be completed within 12 months of being launched. The judgment confirms that where applicants fail to file records timeously, fail to seek proper condonation, and fail to bring substantive applications for revival of archived matters, the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to hear such applications. The case demonstrates that courts will not indefinitely indulge litigants who flagrantly disregard procedural rules, even in the interests of fairness. It serves as a warning that the expeditious resolution of labour disputes requires diligent prosecution of applications and that excessive delays without reasonable explanation will result in dismissal. The case also confirms that costs will ordinarily follow the result where a party's conduct has been unreasonable and has compelled the other party to incur legal costs.