Successes for 2025 (2) EKAPA MINERALS v LINKS (Dec 2025)

EKAPA MINERALS (PTY) LTD (PREVIOUSLY KIMBERLY EKAPA MINING JV)
and NUM OBO STALIN LINKS
The case involved Ekapa Minerals (Pty) Ltd (the Applicant) seeking to review an arbitration award issued by Commissioner Martin Rabie, which had ruled that the dismissal of the Employee, Stalin Links, was procedurally fair but substantively unfair. The Applicant received the award on 30 November 2020 and filed the review application on 12 January 2021. The Employee did not file an answering affidavit until 20 March 2021, which was 475 days late, and sought condonation for this delay only 16 months after the filing. Findings: The Labour Court noted multiple delays in the proceedings, particularly regarding the Employee’s late filing of the answering affidavit and the review application. The court acknowledged the Applicant’s arguments against condonation for the late filings. However, it also considered procedural fairness and the merits of the case as presented during the hearing. Outcome: Despite the Applicant initially seeking only to address the issue of condonation, the Labour Court decided to consider the broader implications and arguments related to the review application. Ultimately, the ruling addressed the merits of the case as well as the procedural elements involved, leading the court to make a decision that addressed both the condonation request and the overall review of the award.

Outcome Summary: The Labour Court of South Africa reviewed an arbitration award following an application from Ekapa Minerals (Pty) Ltd regarding the dismissal of an employee (the First Respondent). The Court noted that while the dismissal was found to be procedurally fair, it was deemed substantively unfair. The Applicant filed the Review Application late, which the First Respondent contested, arguing that condonation was not sought for the delay. The Court ultimately addressed issues of late filing of the answering affidavit and the procedures followed regarding the submission of Heads of Argument.

1. Late Filing of Review Application: The Applicant’s delay in filing the Review Application and the lack of condonation request raised concerns about costs.
2. First Respondent’s Late Answering Affidavit: The First Respondent also filed its Answering Affidavit significantly late (475 days), which might influence the decision on costs against them.
3. Amendments to Heads of Argument: The First Respondent’s Counsel made amendments on the day of the hearing, leading to disputes about whether these were corrections or substantial changes, potentially affecting cost implications.
4. General Conduct of Parties: The Court may consider the overall conduct and compliance of both parties with procedural rules when determining costs. Ultimately, the Court will likely decide costs based on the fairness and reasonableness of the parties’ actions throughout the proceedings.
Source: https://www1.saflii.org/za/cases/ZALCCT/2025/127.pdf