Kgobe v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1988/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 228 (20 June 2018)

Kgobe v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1988/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 228 (20 June 2018)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of the seven-month delay in filing the review application. The explanation offered was inadequate and largely attributed to the conduct of her previous attorney, which does not absolve the applicant of responsibility. The authorities cited establish that, in the absence of a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, the prospects of success are immaterial. Even if the explanation were accepted, the applicant's dissatisfaction with the quantum of compensation awarded by the arbitrator does not constitute a valid ground for review. The arbitrator exercised his discretion within...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 228
Parties
Applicant: Paulina Kgobe; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner L. Shear N.O; Respondent: Tlhokomelo Drop-In Centre
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 June 2018
Case Number
JR1988/17
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the review application is refused; the review application is dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Condonation, Review of Arbitration Award, Quantum of Compensation, Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Review of Arbitration Award Quantum of Compensation Unfair Dismissal

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

Parties

Paulina Kgobe

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner L. Shear N.O

Respondent

Tlhokomelo Drop-In Centre

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the arbitrator was reviewable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of the seven-month delay in filing the review application. The explanation offered was inadequate and largely attributed to the conduct of her previous attorney, which does not absolve the applicant of responsibility. The authorities cited establish that, in the absence of a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, the prospects of success are immaterial. Even if the explanation were accepted, the applicant's dissatisfaction with the quantum of compensation awarded by the arbitrator does not constitute a valid ground for review. The arbitrator exercised his discretion within...

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the review application is refused; the review application is dismissed.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the review application is refused.
  • The review application is dismissed.