Makola and Others v Dickens NO and Others (JR774/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 526 (8 September 2016)

Makola and Others v Dickens NO and Others (JR774/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 526 (8 September 2016)

The court found that the delay of five months in filing the review application was excessive and the explanation provided by the applicants was inadequate and lacking in detail. The applicants failed to properly address the prospects of success in the review application. The commissioner had applied the correct legal test and exercised discretion in accordance with established authorities, considering the degree of lateness, the reasons for the delay, prospects of success, and prejudice to the parties. Granting condonation would undermine the statutory purpose of expeditious and efficient dispute resolution. Accordingly, condonation was refused and the review application dismissed.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 526
Parties
Applicant: Alfred Makola & Others; Respondent: CL Dickens N.O.; Respondent: DRC Motor Industry; Respondent: Scania SA (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2016
Case Number
JR774/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the review application is refused and the review application is dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Condonation, Review of Arbitration Award, Unfair Dismissal, Delay in Prosecution
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Review of Arbitration Award Unfair Dismissal Delay in Prosecution

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfred Makola & Others

Applicant

CL Dickens N.O.

Respondent

DRC Motor Industry

Respondent

Scania SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay.
  3. 3 Whether the prospects of success in the review application justify condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay of five months in filing the review application was excessive and the explanation provided by the applicants was inadequate and lacking in detail. The applicants failed to properly address the prospects of success in the review application. The commissioner had applied the correct legal test and exercised discretion in accordance with established authorities, considering the degree of lateness, the reasons for the delay, prospects of success, and prejudice to the parties. Granting condonation would undermine the statutory purpose of expeditious and efficient dispute resolution. Accordingly, condonation was refused and the review application dismissed.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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