Mashego v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 602/15) [2021] ZALCJHB 195 (27 July 2021)
The Court found that the applicant failed to file the record within the prescribed 60-day period and did not seek an extension from the respondent or the Court. In terms of clause 11.2.3 of the Practice Manual, the review application is deemed withdrawn. The applicant did not file a substantive application for reinstatement, but instead sought condonation for the late filing of the record, which is impermissible in the absence of reinstatement. The Court declared the review application withdrawn and struck both the review and dismissal applications from the roll. Given the applicant's disregard for the Practice Manual and the interests of justice, the Court ordered the applicant to pay...
- Citation
- [2021] ZALCJHB 195
- Parties
- Applicant: Booysen Mfananyana Mashego; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: M Tsatsimpe; Respondent: National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 27 July 2021
- Case Number
- JR 602/15
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Application to Dismiss Review and Condonation for Late Filing of Record
- Outcome
- Review application deemed withdrawn; both review and dismissal applications struck from the roll; partial cost order against applicant.
- Judges
- Prinsloo
- Legal Topics
- Review Application Delay, Practice Manual Compliance, Condonation, Withdrawal of Application
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Booysen Mfananyana Mashego
Applicant
Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Respondent
M Tsatsimpe
Respondent
National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Dismiss Review and Condonation for Late Filing of Record
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's review application should be dismissed or declared withdrawn due to undue delay and non-compliance with the Practice Manual.
- 2 Whether condonation for the late filing of the record can be granted in the absence of an application to reinstate the withdrawn review application.
- 3 Whether a cost order should be made against the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the applicant failed to file the record within the prescribed 60-day period and did not seek an extension from the respondent or the Court. In terms of clause 11.2.3 of the Practice Manual, the review application is deemed withdrawn. The applicant did not file a substantive application for reinstatement, but instead sought condonation for the late filing of the record, which is impermissible in the absence of reinstatement. The Court declared the review application withdrawn and struck both the review and dismissal applications from the roll. Given the applicant's disregard for the Practice Manual and the interests of justice, the Court ordered the applicant to pay...
Court Disposition
Review application deemed withdrawn; both review and dismissal applications struck from the roll; partial cost order against applicant.
Orders
- It is declared that in terms of clause 11.2 of the Practice Manual, the review application is deemed to have been withdrawn.
- The review application is struck from the roll.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment