FAWU obo Morris v South African Breweries and Others (P462/09) [2013] ZALCPE 20 (15 May 2013)

FAWU obo Morris v South African Breweries and Others (P462/09) [2013] ZALCPE 20 (15 May 2013)

The respondent failed to prosecute the review application with diligence, did not secure a complete record, and ignored multiple court directives. The answering affidavit was filed substantially out of time without explanation. The respondent's conduct demonstrated a lack of interest in prosecuting the matter. The substantial delays and failure to comply with procedural requirements justified dismissal of the review application. The applicant was prejudiced by the delay, and the interests of justice required that the matter be finalised. Costs were awarded against the respondent due to its conduct and the postponement occasioned by its failure to act.

Citation
[2013] ZALCPE 20
Parties
Applicant: FAWU obo Mzileni Morris; Respondent: South African Breweries; Respondent: Zolashe Lallie N.O.; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 May 2013
Case Number
P462/09
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Rule 11 Application to Dismiss Review
Outcome
The Rule 11 application is granted; the review application is dismissed with costs.
Judges
AC Basson
Legal Topics
Review Application Dismissal, Delay in Prosecution, Rule 11 Application, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review Application Dismissal Delay in Prosecution Rule 11 Application Costs 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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FAWU obo Mzileni Morris

Applicant

South African Breweries

Respondent

Zolashe Lallie N.O.

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Rule 11 Application to Dismiss Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent diligently prosecuted the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent took sufficient steps to secure a complete record for the review.
  3. 3 Whether the delay and failure to comply with court directives justify dismissal of the review application.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to prosecute the review application with diligence, did not secure a complete record, and ignored multiple court directives. The answering affidavit was filed substantially out of time without explanation. The respondent's conduct demonstrated a lack of interest in prosecuting the matter. The substantial delays and failure to comply with procedural requirements justified dismissal of the review application. The applicant was prejudiced by the delay, and the interests of justice required that the matter be finalised. Costs were awarded against the respondent due to its conduct and the postponement occasioned by its failure to act.

Court Disposition

The Rule 11 application is granted; the review application is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The Rule 11 application is granted.
  • The review application is dismissed.