Makulala v Markos Bros (Pty) Ltd t/a Witfield Spar and Others (JR 441/2021) [2022] ZALCJHB 38 (8 March 2022)

Makulala v Markos Bros (Pty) Ltd t/a Witfield Spar and Others (JR 441/2021) [2022] ZALCJHB 38 (8 March 2022)

The court held that there was no basis to grant leave to appeal because the review application was filed 49 days late without an application for condonation, despite the applicant being assisted by a union official who should have been aware of the procedural requirements. Furthermore, the founding affidavit in support of the review application failed to establish any grounds for review, merely repeating submissions already considered and dismissed by the second respondent in a reasoned ruling. The court found no prospects of success in the review application and no compelling reason to grant leave to appeal.

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 38
Parties
Applicant: M.C Makulala; Respondent: Markos Bros (Pty) Ltd t/a Witfield Spar; Respondent: Commissioner L. Mokoena N.O; Respondent: The CCMA
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 March 2022
Case Number
JR 441/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused.
Judges
A van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing of Review, Leave to Appeal, Ccma Review
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing of Review Leave to Appeal Ccma Review

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.C Makulala

Applicant

Markos Bros (Pty) Ltd t/a Witfield Spar

Respondent

Commissioner L. Mokoena N.O

Respondent

The CCMA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted where the review application was filed late without condonation.
  2. 2 Whether the review application has prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there was no basis to grant leave to appeal because the review application was filed 49 days late without an application for condonation, despite the applicant being assisted by a union official who should have been aware of the procedural requirements. Furthermore, the founding affidavit in support of the review application failed to establish any grounds for review, merely repeating submissions already considered and dismissed by the second respondent in a reasoned ruling. The court found no prospects of success in the review application and no compelling reason to grant leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.