Aspen Pharmacare v Makhari (JA70/22) [2024] ZALAC 45; [2024] 12 BLLR 1234 (LAC); (2025) 46 ILJ 295 (LAC) (7 October 2024)

Aspen Pharmacare v Makhari (JA70/22) [2024] ZALAC 45; [2024] 12 BLLR 1234 (LAC); (2025) 46 ILJ 295 (LAC) (7 October 2024)

The Labour Appeal Court held that while the respondent’s condonation application was irregular in form, the Labour Court was entitled to exercise its discretion to cure the defect in the interests of justice, fairness, and expedition. The material facts and explanation for the delay were before the Labour Court, and the appellant did not allege any prejudice resulting from the irregularity. The delay was caused by an erroneous referral to arbitration, which constituted a reasonable and satisfactory explanation. The Labour Court considered all relevant factors, including the degree of lateness, explanation, prospects of success, and importance of the issue, and did not exercise its...

Citation
[2024] ZALAC 45
Parties
Appellant: Aspen Pharmacare; Respondent: Lufuno Kennedy Makhari
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 October 2024
Case Number
JA 70/22
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Labour Court Condonation Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; condonation for late filing of notice of appeal granted; no order as to costs.
Judges
Molahlehi, Savage, Malindi
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, Unfair Discrimination, Jurisdiction, Interpretation Act, Employment Equity Act
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing Unfair Discrimination Jurisdiction Interpretation Act Employment Equity Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aspen Pharmacare

Appellant

Lufuno Kennedy Makhari

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Labour Court Condonation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court was competent to consider the respondent’s condonation application despite non-compliance with rule 7(3) of the Old Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Court erred in granting condonation for late filing of the statement of claim, given the miscalculation of the degree of lateness.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent made out a case for condonation in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that while the respondent’s condonation application was irregular in form, the Labour Court was entitled to exercise its discretion to cure the defect in the interests of justice, fairness, and expedition. The material facts and explanation for the delay were before the Labour Court, and the appellant did not allege any prejudice resulting from the irregularity. The delay was caused by an erroneous referral to arbitration, which constituted a reasonable and satisfactory explanation. The Labour Court considered all relevant factors, including the degree of lateness, explanation, prospects of success, and importance of the issue, and did not exercise its...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; condonation for late filing of notice of appeal granted; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The late filing of the notice of appeal is condoned.
  • The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.