Magaqa v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (P 45/99) [1999] ZALC 99 (17 June 1999)

Magaqa v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (P 45/99) [1999] ZALC 99 (17 June 1999)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any factual basis for condonation of the late referral. The letter submitted by the applicant contained no substantive explanation for the delay, nor did the applicant name the attorneys or clarify their mandate. The delay of eleven months was unreasonably long, and the applicant did not demonstrate prospects of success. The Commissioner considered all submissions and applied his mind to the material before him. The court held that the Commissioner's refusal to grant condonation was justified and not reviewable.

Citation
[1999] ZALC 99
Parties
Applicant: Zamiwonga Magaqa; Respondent: Commissioner Botha Du Plessis; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Auditor General
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 June 1999
Case Number
P 45/99
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Review of CCMA Condonation Refusal
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Judges
Mlambo
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Referral, Judicial Discretion, Prospects of Success
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Referral Judicial Discretion 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zamiwonga Magaqa

Applicant

Commissioner Botha Du Plessis

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Auditor General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Review of CCMA Condonation Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner's refusal to grant condonation for the late referral of the dispute was reviewable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in referring the dispute.
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner exercised his discretion judicially in refusing condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any factual basis for condonation of the late referral. The letter submitted by the applicant contained no substantive explanation for the delay, nor did the applicant name the attorneys or clarify their mandate. The delay of eleven months was unreasonably long, and the applicant did not demonstrate prospects of success. The Commissioner considered all submissions and applied his mind to the material before him. The court held that the Commissioner's refusal to grant condonation was justified and not reviewable.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.