Mashabela and Others v KLT Automotive & Tubular Products and Others (JS824/2017) [2023] ZALCJHB 161 (31 May 2023)

Mashabela and Others v KLT Automotive & Tubular Products and Others (JS824/2017) [2023] ZALCJHB 161 (31 May 2023)

The applicants failed to prosecute their review application within the time limits set by the Practice Manual, resulting in its deemed withdrawal. Their explanation for the delay, attributing it solely to the conduct of their previous attorney, is inadequate as there is no evidence of steps taken to follow up or ensure progress. Furthermore, the application for condonation does not properly address the prospects of success in the review, nor does it provide a comprehensive explanation for the delay. The excessive delay and incomplete condonation application mean that reinstating the review would be futile, as it would inevitably be dismissed for non-compliance. Accordingly, the...

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 161
Parties
Applicant: Dimakatjo Florah Mashabela; Applicant: Kgaogelo Tsepudikgolo Motjoadi; Applicant: Zabilon Kaki Thamaga; Applicant: Louis Vusimuzi Mavundla; Applicant: Mpho Hendrick Mokgethoa; Applicant: Maphetja Charles Mhloko; Applicant: Ramatlhatsi Raymond Pole; Respondent: KLT Automotive & Tubular Products SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Dispute Resolution Centre of the Northern Region; Respondent: Commissioner Johan D Stapelberg N.O.
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2023
Case Number
JS824/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Reinstate Review After Deemed Withdrawal
Outcome
Application to reinstate the review application is dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Condonation, Practice Manual, Review Application, Jurisdiction, Late Filing
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Practice Manual Review Application Jurisdiction Late Filing

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

Dimakatjo Florah Mashabela

Applicant

Kgaogelo Tsepudikgolo Motjoadi

Applicant

Zabilon Kaki Thamaga

Applicant

Louis Vusimuzi Mavundla

Applicant

Mpho Hendrick Mokgethoa

Applicant

Maphetja Charles Mhloko

Applicant

Ramatlhatsi Raymond Pole

Applicant

KLT Automotive & Tubular Products SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Dispute Resolution Centre of the Northern Region

Respondent

Commissioner Johan D Stapelberg N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Reinstate Review After Deemed Withdrawal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for the reinstatement of a review application deemed withdrawn due to non-compliance with the Practice Manual.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for the delay in prosecuting the review application is adequate.
  3. 3 Whether prospects of success in the underlying review application have been established.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to prosecute their review application within the time limits set by the Practice Manual, resulting in its deemed withdrawal. Their explanation for the delay, attributing it solely to the conduct of their previous attorney, is inadequate as there is no evidence of steps taken to follow up or ensure progress. Furthermore, the application for condonation does not properly address the prospects of success in the review, nor does it provide a comprehensive explanation for the delay. The excessive delay and incomplete condonation application mean that reinstating the review would be futile, as it would inevitably be dismissed for non-compliance. Accordingly, the...

Court Disposition

Application to reinstate the review application is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to reinstate the review application is dismissed.