Mandlazi v Ubuhle Bemvelo Plant Hire (JS212-20) [2021] ZALCJHB 88 (27 May 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] ZALCJHB 88
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- F Coetzee
- Case number
- JS212-20
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- F Coetzee
- Case number
- JS212-20
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the delay in filing the statement of claim was minimal (two days) and that the applicant provided a sufficient and reasonable explanation for the delay, primarily due to the conduct of his previous attorneys and the insurer. The applicant acted diligently once he became aware of the lack of progress. There was no prejudice to the respondent, and the applicant would be denied access to the court if condonation were refused. The applicant also demonstrated prospects of success in his claim for unfair retrenchment. Accordingly, condonation was granted.
Court disposition
Condonation for the late filing of the statement of claim is granted with no order as to costs.
Orders
- The late filing of the statement of claim is condoned.
- There is no order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Andrew Antonios Mandlazi
ApplicantUbuhle Bemvelo Plant Hire
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Condonation Application / Interlocutory
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has provided a sufficient and reasonable explanation for the late filing of the statement of claim.
- 02
Whether condonation for the late filing should be granted.
- 03
Whether the applicant has prospects of success in the main claim for unfair retrenchment.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant explained that the delay was caused by his reliance on his insurer, Scorpion, which appointed attorneys who did not act diligently. Upon realizing the lack of progress, the applicant arranged for new attorneys, who promptly filed the statement of claim. The delay was only two days, and the applicant asserts he was unfairly retrenched and has prospects of success.
- Respondent
- The respondent did not file opposing papers or arguments in this interlocutory application.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995
Condonation may be granted where the delay is not excessive, the explanation is reasonable, and the applicant has prospects of success.
- 02
National Union of Mineworkers v Council for Mineral Technology [1999] 3 BLLR 209 (LAC)
The interests of justice require that matters be heard unless there is prejudice or special circumstances justifying refusal of condonation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the delay in filing the statement of claim was minimal (two days) and that the applicant provided a sufficient and reasonable explanation for the delay, primarily due to the conduct of his previous attorneys and the insurer. The applicant acted diligently once he became aware of the lack of progress. There was no prejudice to the respondent, and the applicant would be denied access to the court if condonation were refused. The applicant also demonstrated prospects of success in his claim for unfair retrenchment. Accordingly, condonation was granted.
Obiter and limits
- There are no special circumstances that prejudice either party except that the applicant, if condonation is refused, would not have his matter heard.
- This is an interlocutory matter where the applicant is successful; there is no reason to make a cost order.
Court disposition
Condonation for the late filing of the statement of claim is granted with no order as to costs.
- The late filing of the statement of claim is condoned.
- There is no order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Judgment
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case no: JS212-20
In the matter between:
ANDREW
ANTONIOS
MANDLAZI
Applicant
and
UBUHLE
BEMVELO PLANT
HIRE
Respondent
Heard: 26 May 2021
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email and release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10h00 on 27 May 2021.
Summary: Condonation
JUDGMENT
COETZEE, AJ
[1] The applicant seeks condonation for the late filing of his statement of claim.
The delay
[2] The certificate of outcome is dated 17 December 2019.
[3] The applicant's erstwhile attorneys referred the matter for arbitration scheduled by the CCMA for 18 February 2020.
[4] The statement of case was served on 18 March 2020 which means it was 2 days late. It is not an excessive delay.
The explanation for the delay
[5] The applicant approached his insurer, Scorpion, for legal assistance. Scorpion appointed Nkuna Attorneys. On their advice the matter was referred for arbitration set down for 18 February 2020.
[6] The applicant made enquiries as to what occurred on 18 February 2020 and the attorneys requested him to follow up on 28 February 2020 as Scorpion had to issue fresh instructions to refer the matter to the Labour Court as the CCMA could not deal with the dispute.
[7] When applicant enquired from Scorpion as to progress it became clear that the attorneys had not acted diligently whereupon the applicant arranged with Scorpion for the appointment of his current attorney of record. After further enquiries Scorpion appointed the attorneys of record on 17 March 2020 and the statement of case was promptly drafted and served.
[8] The explanation is sufficient and reasonable, and it is clear that the applicant diligently pursued this case.
[9] There are no special circumstances that prejudice either party accept that the applicant, if condonation is refused, would not have his matter heard.
Prospects of success
[10] The applicant submits that he was unfairly retrenched. He has prospects of success.
Costs
[11] This is an interlocutory matter where the applicant is successful. Having regard to the relevant factors there is no reason to make a cost order.
[12] The following order is hereby made:
Order
1. The late filing of the statement of claim is condoned with no order as to costs.
______
F. Coetzee
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
The matter has been determined on paper.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.