Lempe and Others v Distell Limited (J235/2014) [2019] ZALCJHB 208 (30 April 2019)

Lempe and Others v Distell Limited (J235/2014) [2019] ZALCJHB 208 (30 April 2019)

The Court found that the application for condonation was filed more than one year late, with significant periods of delay left completely unexplained. The explanation provided by the applicants was inadequate, lacking detail and failing to account for several months. The authorities establish that, in the absence of a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, prospects of success are immaterial. The statutory imperative for expeditious resolution of labour disputes weighs heavily against granting condonation. The respondent is entitled to finality, and the interests of justice do not support condonation in this case. Accordingly, the application for condonation for the late...

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 208
Parties
Applicant: Thabiso Lempe and 79 Others; Respondent: Distell Limited
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 April 2019
Case Number
J235/2014
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Condonation, Leave to Appeal, Expeditious Resolution, Prospects of Success
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Leave to Appeal Expeditious Resolution Prospects of Success

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thabiso Lempe and 79 Others

Applicant

Distell Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for the delay is reasonable, satisfactory and acceptable.
  3. 3 Whether the prospects of success are material in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the application for condonation was filed more than one year late, with significant periods of delay left completely unexplained. The explanation provided by the applicants was inadequate, lacking detail and failing to account for several months. The authorities establish that, in the absence of a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, prospects of success are immaterial. The statutory imperative for expeditious resolution of labour disputes weighs heavily against granting condonation. The respondent is entitled to finality, and the interests of justice do not support condonation in this case. Accordingly, the application for condonation for the late...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for the late filing of the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.