BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Tshoba [2026] ZALCCT 184

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 20 October 2026, Labour Court, Cape Town

Case No: 2025-121021

Name of Judge(s): May AJ

Summary of Factual Matrix:

The respondent, an unrepresented former employee dismissed for operational requirements, referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the Labour Court in July 2025 after conciliation failed. The employer filed its statement of response, a pre-trial conference was held on 21 October 2025, and a draft pre-trial minute was sent to the respondent. Despite repeated reminders, including a warning of the archiving provisions of rule 69(2)(b), the respondent never returned a signed minute or took any further step.

The employer applied under rule 41 of the Labour Court Rules (which replaced the former rule 11) for the dismissal of the referral for want of prosecution. The respondent, though aware of the hearing, neither opposed the application nor appeared, and the matter proceeded unopposed. The issue was whether the Court should dismiss the referral rather than leave it to be archived.

Summary of Findings:

[8] ‘Applications of this nature were brought in terms of the previous Rule 11 of the repealed Labour Court Rules which allowed litigants to bring applications for matters not covered by the rules. Under the new Rules, Rule 41 has replaced Rule 11.’

[9] ‘Rule 41 (3), like Rule 11 (4) before it, provides that in the exercise of its powers and the performance of its functions, or any incidental matter, a court may act in a manner that it considers expedient in the circumstances to achieve the objects of the act.’

[10] ‘It is trite that the LRA must be interpreted purposively to give effect to an expeditious resolution of labour disputes[1]. Any delay in the resolution of labour disputes undermine the primary object of the LRA and is detrimental not only to the workers who may be without a source of income pending the resolution of the dispute but ultimately, also to the employer who may have to reinstate workers after many years.[2]’

[12] ‘Respondent has taken no further steps since 21 October 2025, on the applicant’s version, when he partook in the pre- trial meeting. I think the applicant is generous towards the respondent and it is my view that he hasn’t taken any further steps since the filing of the service affidavit on 4 August 2025.’

[13] ‘It is now settled that a lapsed review application does not impede this Court from entertaining a Rule 11 application and that a party that seeks irrefutable finality for purposes of execution or due to an inordinate delay can avail itself of the Rule 11 application[3] This Court’s power to reinstate a lapsed review application extends, by implication, to the rule 11 dismissal application.[4] The same holds true therefore to an application in terms of Rule 41.’

[14] ‘The need for expedition in the prosecution of employment law disputes is trite as advanced aforesaid. The respondent is obliged to comply with the time periods set in the Rules or seek condonation where he is unable to. The delays herein are unacceptable, excessive and unreasonable.’

[15] ‘The efforts made by the applicant herein are to be lauded. They haven’t stood by idly and just awaited the respondent, who is after all an unrepresented litigant, to fail. They have actively sought to engage the respondent and encouraged him to comply. Despite this, the respondent has failed to take any steps more than a year after the case was launched.’

[16] ‘I agree with the applicant that it is entitled to certainty and that it is patently unfair and unreasonable that it has to incur any further financial prejudice as a result of the respondent’s recalcitrance. The matter would in all probability be archived and I agree that allowing the respondent a further opportunity to, at his convenience, seek reinstatement at some stage in the future, does not afford the applicant the requisite certainty nor does it promote the need for expedition.’

[17] ‘The application was not opposed and, notwithstanding the conduct of the respondent in relation to the prosecution of his referral, it would not be appropriate to order costs in the circumstances.’

Relief: The rule 41 application was granted and the respondent's referral under case number 2025-121021 was dismissed for want of prosecution, with no order as to costs.

Judgment on SAFLII