Bidvest Protea Coin v Maake and Others (JR2035/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 251 (23 June 2025)

Bidvest Protea Coin v Maake and Others (JR2035/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 251 (23 June 2025)

The applicant failed to provide a convincing and comprehensive explanation for the eleven-month delay in prosecuting the review application. The delay was excessive and not adequately justified, as the applicant's reliance on a candidate attorney does not absolve it from responsibility. The explanation and prospects...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZALCJHB 251
Parties
Applicant: Bidvest Protea Coin; Respondent: Thakgalane Johannes Maake; Respondent: Mandlenkosi Zwane N.O; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 June 2025
Case Number
JR2035/21
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Reinstatement of Review and Rule 11 Dismissal
Outcome
Application for reinstatement of the review application refused; Rule 11 application struck off the roll; review application deemed withdrawn and archived; no costs order made.
Judges
N Tshisevhe
Legal Topics
Condonation, Practice Manual Compliance, Review Application Reinstatement, Rule 11 Dismissal, Attorney Negligence
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Practice Manual Compliance Review Application Reinstatement Rule 11 Dismissal Attorney Negligence

Source-derived case record

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bidvest Protea Coin

Applicant

Thakgalane Johannes Maake

Respondent

Mandlenkosi Zwane N.O

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Reinstatement of Review and Rule 11 Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for reinstatement of the review application after an excessive delay.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the review application was reasonable and adequately explained.
  3. 3 Whether the Rule 11 application to dismiss the review is properly before the court without an affidavit.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a convincing and comprehensive explanation for the eleven-month delay in prosecuting the review application. The delay was excessive and not adequately justified, as the applicant's reliance on a candidate attorney does not absolve it from responsibility. The explanation and prospects of success were both weak and did not compensate for the period of inactivity. The Rule 11 application was procedurally defective, lacking an affidavit. The court found that the applicant did not show good cause for reinstatement, and the review application must be deemed withdrawn and archived. No costs order was warranted given the nature of employment disputes.

Court Disposition

Application for reinstatement of the review application refused; Rule 11 application struck off the roll; review application deemed withdrawn and archived; no costs order made.

Orders

  • The application for reinstatement of the review application is refused.
  • The Rule 11 application is struck off the roll.