South Africa Judgment

Labour Court Johannesburg

Coetzer and Other v Pegasus Industrial Services (Pty) Ltd (JS766/2020) [2021] ZALCJHB 248 (16 August 2021)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the delay in filing the Statement of Case was only nine days and that the explanation provided by the applicants was satisfactory. The prospects of success in the main dispute were noted, and the respondent did not oppose the application. The court determined that no prejudice would be suffered by the respondent if condonation was granted. Accordingly, condonation for the late filing was granted, and the matter was directed to be enrolled for default judgment.

Court disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the Statement of Case is granted.

Orders

  • The late filing of the Applicants Statement of Case is condoned.
  • There is no order for costs in the condonation application.
  • The Registrar is directed to enroll the matter for default judgment.
  • The attorneys for the Applicant are to serve a copy of this judgment and order on the Respondent by no later than a month after receipt of the order.

02

Material facts

Parties

Charien Coetzer and Other

Applicant Counsel: Adv Strobel

Pegasus Industrial Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Condonation Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Statement of Case

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicants submitted that the delay in filing the Statement of Case was nine days, which is minimal. They provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay and argued that there are prospects of success in the main dispute. They further contended that the respondent would not suffer any prejudice if condonation is granted.
Respondent
The respondent did not appear and did not oppose the application.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Melane v Santam Insurance Co. Ltd 1962 (4) SA 531 (A)

    Condonation for late filing may be granted where the delay is minimal, the explanation is satisfactory, prospects of success exist, and no prejudice is caused to the respondent.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the delay in filing the Statement of Case was only nine days and that the explanation provided by the applicants was satisfactory. The prospects of success in the main dispute were noted, and the respondent did not oppose the application. The court determined that no prejudice would be suffered by the respondent if condonation was granted. Accordingly, condonation for the late filing was granted, and the matter was directed to be enrolled for default judgment.

Obiter and limits

  • The applicant's attorneys have diligently indexed and paginated the court file for default judgment and Counsel has already drawn heads in such application.
  • The default judgment application was not enrolled before the court and must be held over for another day.

Court disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the Statement of Case is granted.

  • The late filing of the Applicants Statement of Case is condoned.
  • There is no order for costs in the condonation application.
  • The Registrar is directed to enroll the matter for default judgment.
  • The attorneys for the Applicant are to serve a copy of this judgment and order on the Respondent by no later than a month after receipt of the order.

Source and reliance status

Labour Court Johannesburg

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Labour Court Johannesburg

Judgment

[2021] ZALCJHB 248

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

Not Reportable

Revised

Case No: JS766/2020

16/08/21

In the matter between:

CHARIEN

COETZER AND OTHER Applicants

and

PEGASUS INDUSTRIAL SERVICES (Pty) Ltd Respondent

Heard: 07 July 2020

Delivered: (ln view of the measures implemented as a result of the Covid-19 outbreak, this judgment was handed down electronically by circulation

to the parties' representatives by email. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 16 August 2021)

JUDGMENT

MAHOMED, AJ

1. This is an unopposed application to condone the late filing of the Statement of Case (in the Labour Court). The application is filed under section 191(11)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

2. The application was considered in Chambers as the applicants did not require an oral hearing in line with the COVID-19 Directives.

3. I have considered the application deposed to by the first applicant. The delay in approaching this court is nine (9) days. This is a minimal delay and the explanation for delay is satisfactory. There appears to be prospects of success in the main dispute (which I mention also does not appear to be defended). No prejudice would be suffered by the respondent in the granting of condonation. I am thus prepared to grant the applicants condonation.[1]

4. The matter enrolled for hearing on the 7 July 2021 motion roll was the determination of the condonation application only. I make this point, as I note that the applicant's attorneys have diligently indexed and paginated the court file for default judgment and that Counsel has already drawn heads in such application.

5. Whilst I have condoned the late filing of the Statement of Case, as the default judgment was not enrolled before me for hearing such application could not be determined. It must be held over for another day.

6. I thus make the following order:

Order:

1. The late filing of the Applicants Statement of Case is condoned.

2. There is no order for costs in the condonation application.

3. The Registrar is directed to enroll the matter for default judgment.

4 The attorneys for the Applicant are to serve a copy of this judgement and order on the Respondent by no later than a month after receipt of the order.

I.I. Mahomed

Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa

Appearances:

For the applicant: J Adv Strobel

Instructed by: Gibbs

& De Jager Attorneys

For the respondent: No Appearance

[1] Melane v Santam Insurance Co. Ltd 1962 (4) SA 531 (A) and various authorities following this judgement

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Melane v Santam Insurance Co. Ltd 1962 (4) SA 531 (A)

Case cited

Labour Relations Act, 1995

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.