Manisi v Integritron Integrated Solutions (JS364/20) [2021] ZALCJHB 231 (12 August 2021)

Manisi v Integritron Integrated Solutions (JS364/20) [2021] ZALCJHB 231 (12 August 2021)

The Court found the respondent's explanation for the 13-day delay in delivering its statement of response reasonable, given the operational constraints caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and related staffing issues. The respondent addressed its prospects of success by cross-referencing its statement of response and confirming its defence under oath, which the Court found sufficient. The applicant's claim of prejudice was not substantiated, as the opposition to condonation itself had already caused delays. The Court determined that refusing condonation would unfairly prejudice the respondent by denying it the opportunity to present its defence. Applying the interests of justice standard, the...

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 231
Parties
Applicant: Thozamile Elliot Manisi; Respondent: Integritron Integrated Solutions
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 August 2021
Case Number
JS364/20
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Delivery of Statement of Response
Outcome
Condonation for the late delivery of the respondent's statement of response is granted. No order as to costs.
Judges
K Naidoo
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Automatic Unfair Dismissal, Discrimination, Retrenchment Consultation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Automatic Unfair Dismissal Discrimination Retrenchment Consultation

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thozamile Elliot Manisi

Applicant

Integritron Integrated Solutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Delivery of Statement of Response

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has provided a satisfactory explanation for the late delivery of its statement of response.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has addressed its prospects of success in the main claim sufficiently for condonation to be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant will suffer prejudice if condonation is granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the respondent's explanation for the 13-day delay in delivering its statement of response reasonable, given the operational constraints caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and related staffing issues. The respondent addressed its prospects of success by cross-referencing its statement of response and confirming its defence under oath, which the Court found sufficient. The applicant's claim of prejudice was not substantiated, as the opposition to condonation itself had already caused delays. The Court determined that refusing condonation would unfairly prejudice the respondent by denying it the opportunity to present its defence. Applying the interests of justice standard, the...

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late delivery of the respondent's statement of response is granted. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for the late delivery of the respondent’s statement of response is condoned.
  • There is no order as to costs.