JAMAFO obo Nero v Pick 'n Pay (Pty) Ltd and Others (C81/07) [2009] ZALCCT 2 (5 March 2009)

JAMAFO obo Nero v Pick 'n Pay (Pty) Ltd and Others (C81/07) [2009] ZALCCT 2 (5 March 2009)

The court held that the applicant cannot validly blame his legal representative for the procedural choice that led to the delay in filing the review application. The legal position is settled that a litigant is bound by the election made on the advice of his attorney, even if the advice was incorrect. The applicant failed to provide adequate explanation for the delay, and there are no reasonable prospects that a higher court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.

Citation
[2009] ZALCCT 2
Parties
Applicant: JAMAFO obo Frank Nero; Respondent: Pick 'n Pay (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Van Staden NO, Piet; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2009
Case Number
C81/07
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Condonation for Late Review Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Ngalwana
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Filing, Review of Arbitration Award, Legal Representative Mistake
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation for Late Filing Review of Arbitration Award Legal Representative Mistake

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JAMAFO obo Frank Nero

Applicant

Pick 'n Pay (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Van Staden NO, Piet

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Condonation for Late Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the dismissal of condonation for late filing of a review application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant can rely on the mistake of his legal representative to justify the delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant cannot validly blame his legal representative for the procedural choice that led to the delay in filing the review application. The legal position is settled that a litigant is bound by the election made on the advice of his attorney, even if the advice was incorrect. The applicant failed to provide adequate explanation for the delay, and there are no reasonable prospects that a higher court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.