Giwusa and Others v Maxam Dantex SA (Pty) Ltd (JS699/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 147 (12 February 2016)

Giwusa and Others v Maxam Dantex SA (Pty) Ltd (JS699/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 147 (12 February 2016)

The court found that the delay in filing the statement of claim was excessive, being more than four months late beyond the prescribed period. The explanation offered by the applicants was inadequate, amounting to a mere shifting of blame to their attorney and trade union, both of whom failed to act diligently. The court held that there is a limit to how far a litigant can escape the consequences of their representatives' negligence. Furthermore, the prospects of success were poor, as the employer had followed a fair process and the dismissals were for participation in an unprotected strike, which is misconduct under the LRA. Accordingly, condonation was refused.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 147
Parties
Applicant: GIWUSA; Applicant: Kekana & others; Respondent: Maxam Dantex SA (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 February 2016
Case Number
JS699/15
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed with costs.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Unprotected Strike, Attorney Negligence
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Unfair Dismissal Unprotected Strike Attorney Negligence

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GIWUSA

Applicant

Kekana & others

Applicant

Maxam Dantex SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have provided a sufficient explanation for the excessive delay in filing their statement of claim.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants can escape the consequences of their attorney's and trade union's negligence.
  3. 3 Whether the prospects of success justify granting condonation despite the delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in filing the statement of claim was excessive, being more than four months late beyond the prescribed period. The explanation offered by the applicants was inadequate, amounting to a mere shifting of blame to their attorney and trade union, both of whom failed to act diligently. The court held that there is a limit to how far a litigant can escape the consequences of their representatives' negligence. Furthermore, the prospects of success were poor, as the employer had followed a fair process and the dismissals were for participation in an unprotected strike, which is misconduct under the LRA. Accordingly, condonation was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed with costs.