Fikile and Others v Minister of Roads and Transport and Others (PR110/14) [2019] ZALCPE 20 (30 October 2019)

Fikile and Others v Minister of Roads and Transport and Others (PR110/14) [2019] ZALCPE 20 (30 October 2019)

The court found that the delay in filing the review application was excessive and largely unexplained, particularly after legal representatives had been consulted. The interests of finality and justice required that the matter not be further delayed. The applicants failed to make out a proper case for condonation, and there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. The reference to events in 1996 was made only in the context of finality, not as the starting point for measuring delay.

Citation
[2019] ZALCPE 20
Parties
Applicant: JE Fikile and 16 Others; Respondent: Minister of Roads and Transport; Respondent: MEC for the Dept of Roads and Transport, Eastern Cape; Respondent: GPSSBC; Respondent: PI Dhlodhlo N.O
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 October 2019
Case Number
PR110/14
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Refusal of Condonation for Late Review.
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused, with costs awarded to the first and second respondents.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing of Review, Jurisdiction, Interests of Finality
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing of Review Jurisdiction Interests of Finality

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JE Fikile and 16 Others

Applicant

Minister of Roads and Transport

Respondent

MEC for the Dept of Roads and Transport, Eastern Cape

Respondent

GPSSBC

Respondent

PI Dhlodhlo N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Refusal of Condonation for Late Review.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in refusing condonation for the late filing of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing the review application was adequately explained.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of finality and justice outweigh the applicants' poor explanation for delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in filing the review application was excessive and largely unexplained, particularly after legal representatives had been consulted. The interests of finality and justice required that the matter not be further delayed. The applicants failed to make out a proper case for condonation, and there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. The reference to events in 1996 was made only in the context of finality, not as the starting point for measuring delay.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused, with costs awarded to the first and second respondents.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents.