Bouwer v Ethekwini Municipality and Others (D134/12) [2014] ZALCD 29 (7 July 2014)

Bouwer v Ethekwini Municipality and Others (D134/12) [2014] ZALCD 29 (7 July 2014)

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay in filing the review application was cursory and inadequate. The delay of nearly five months was excessive, and the applicant failed to provide a detailed account of the steps taken during this period. In accordance with established principles, where there is no satisfactory explanation for an unacceptable delay, the prospects of success and prejudice are not relevant. The application for condonation was therefore refused.

Citation
[2014] ZALCD 29
Parties
Applicant: Peter John Reginald Bouwer; Respondent: Ethekwini Municipality; Respondent: Mokgere Masipa N.O; Respondent: South African Local Government Bargaining Council; Respondent: Devrajan Pillay
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 July 2014
Case Number
D134/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Review
Outcome
Application for condonation refused; no order as to costs.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Condonation, Review of Arbitration Award, Unfair Labour Practice, Failure to Promote
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Review of Arbitration Award Unfair Labour Practice Failure to Promote

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter John Reginald Bouwer

Applicant

Ethekwini Municipality

Respondent

Mokgere Masipa N.O

Respondent

South African Local Government Bargaining Council

Respondent

Devrajan Pillay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided a satisfactory explanation for the late filing of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether condonation for the late filing should be granted in light of the degree of delay and the explanation provided.
  3. 3 Whether the prospects of success and prejudice are relevant in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay in filing the review application was cursory and inadequate. The delay of nearly five months was excessive, and the applicant failed to provide a detailed account of the steps taken during this period. In accordance with established principles, where there is no satisfactory explanation for an unacceptable delay, the prospects of success and prejudice are not relevant. The application for condonation was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation refused; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the review application is refused.
  • There is no order as to costs.