Bloem Water v Nthako NO and Others (JR655-2012) [2016] ZALCJHB 112 (22 March 2016)

Bloem Water v Nthako NO and Others (JR655-2012) [2016] ZALCJHB 112 (22 March 2016)

The court found the applicant's condonation application to be unsatisfactory and defective. The applicant failed to provide a clear and compelling explanation for the delay, did not specify the date on which the arbitration award was received, and made only vague submissions regarding prospects of success. The applicant's approach left the court to speculate about material facts, which is unacceptable. As a result, the application for condonation was dismissed, and the court found it unnecessary to consider the merits of the review application. No cost order was made as the respondents did not oppose the condonation application.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 112
Parties
Applicant: Bloem Water; Respondent: Abraham Nthako NO; Respondent: S Hash; Respondent: South African Municipal Workers Union; Respondent: South African Local Government Bargaining Council
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 March 2016
Case Number
JR655-2012
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation of Late Review; Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for condonation of the late review application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Phala
Legal Topics
Condonation, Review of Arbitration Award, Late Filing, Prospects of Success, Service of Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Review of Arbitration Award Late Filing Prospects of Success Service of Award

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bloem Water

Applicant

Abraham Nthako NO

Respondent

S Hash

Respondent

South African Municipal Workers Union

Respondent

South African Local Government Bargaining Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation of Late Review; Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's late filing of the review application should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant demonstrated strong prospects of success in the review.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the applicant's condonation application to be unsatisfactory and defective. The applicant failed to provide a clear and compelling explanation for the delay, did not specify the date on which the arbitration award was received, and made only vague submissions regarding prospects of success. The applicant's approach left the court to speculate about material facts, which is unacceptable. As a result, the application for condonation was dismissed, and the court found it unnecessary to consider the merits of the review application. No cost order was made as the respondents did not oppose the condonation application.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation of the late review application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation of the late review application is dismissed with no order of costs.