CWU obo Lekota v Telkom SA SOC Ltd (JS214/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 413 (25 October 2021)

CWU obo Lekota v Telkom SA SOC Ltd (JS214/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 413 (25 October 2021)

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable or sufficient explanation for the inordinate delay in referring the dispute to the Labour Court. The evidence shows that the applicant was aware of the process and received the jurisdictional ruling earlier than claimed, yet did not act promptly. The explanations offered, including confusion by the union and inability to consult virtually, are unconvincing and unsupported. The delay is excessive and not justified. Even considering the prospects of success, they are insufficient to outweigh the poor explanation for the delay. The interests of justice do not support granting condonation, and the application is dismissed.

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 413
Parties
Applicant: CWU obo Thabo Lekota; Respondent: Telkom SA SOC Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 October 2021
Case Number
JS214/21
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Referral to Labour Court
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed.
Judges
F. Coetzee
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Referral, Unfair Labour Practice, Disciplinary Action, Shop Steward Rights
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Referral Unfair Labour Practice Disciplinary Action Shop Steward Rights

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CWU obo Thabo Lekota

Applicant

Telkom SA SOC Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Referral to Labour Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the inordinate delay in referring the dispute to the Labour Court.
  2. 2 Whether the prospects of success in the main case justify granting condonation.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if condonation is granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable or sufficient explanation for the inordinate delay in referring the dispute to the Labour Court. The evidence shows that the applicant was aware of the process and received the jurisdictional ruling earlier than claimed, yet did not act promptly. The explanations offered, including confusion by the union and inability to consult virtually, are unconvincing and unsupported. The delay is excessive and not justified. Even considering the prospects of success, they are insufficient to outweigh the poor explanation for the delay. The interests of justice do not support granting condonation, and the application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed.

Orders

  • The point in limine is dismissed.
  • The application for condonation is dismissed.