Mashishi v Mdladla and Others (JR2644/11) [2018] ZALCJHB 116; [2018] 7 BLLR 693 (LC); (2018) 39 ILJ 1607 (LC) (15 March 2018)

Mashishi v Mdladla and Others (JR2644/11) [2018] ZALCJHB 116; [2018] 7 BLLR 693 (LC); (2018) 39 ILJ 1607 (LC) (15 March 2018)

The court found that the delay in filing the review application was excessive and the explanation provided by the applicant was manifestly inadequate, with significant periods left unexplained or weakly justified. In accordance with established legal principles, where there is an inordinate delay that is not satisfactorily explained, the applicant's prospects of success are irrelevant. The application for condonation was therefore refused. The court further emphasised the ethical obligation of practitioners not to pursue hopeless cases and warned that future abuses of process may attract punitive costs orders or orders for forfeiture of fees.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 116
Parties
Applicant: Peter Marutwane Mashishi; Respondent: Zodwa Mdladla; Respondent: Public Health and Welfare Sector Bargaining Council; Respondent: Minister of Health
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 March 2018
Case Number
JR2644/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation of Late Review; Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the review application is refused; the review application is dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Condonation, Review of Arbitration Award, Unfair Dismissal, Professional Ethics, Costs Orders
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Review of Arbitration Award Unfair Dismissal Professional Ethics Costs Orders

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Marutwane Mashishi

Applicant

Zodwa Mdladla

Respondent

Public Health and Welfare Sector Bargaining Council

Respondent

Minister of Health

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation of Late Review; Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for the delay is reasonable and acceptable.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's prospects of success are relevant given the extent of the delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in filing the review application was excessive and the explanation provided by the applicant was manifestly inadequate, with significant periods left unexplained or weakly justified. In accordance with established legal principles, where there is an inordinate delay that is not satisfactorily explained, the applicant's prospects of success are irrelevant. The application for condonation was therefore refused. The court further emphasised the ethical obligation of practitioners not to pursue hopeless cases and warned that future abuses of process may attract punitive costs orders or orders for forfeiture of fees.

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the review application is refused; the review application is dismissed.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the review application is refused.
  • The review application is dismissed.