Masinga and Another v Utho Capital (PTY) Ltd (JS120/21) [2022] ZALCJHB 306 (2 November 2022)

Masinga and Another v Utho Capital (PTY) Ltd (JS120/21) [2022] ZALCJHB 306 (2 November 2022)

The court found that the delay of sixty-five days in filing the statement of case was not unacceptably excessive, particularly in the context of action proceedings. The applicants provided a reasonable and bona fide explanation for the delay, which was largely due to an erroneous referral to the CCMA and incorrect advice regarding the calculation of the ninety-day period. The explanation covered both parts of the delay, including the time taken to seek legal representation after being denied pro bono assistance. The applicants demonstrated at least some prospects of success in the main unfair dismissal dispute, as their allegations regarding the retrenchment process, selection criteria,...

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 306
Parties
Applicant: Pertunia Masinga; Applicant: Lebohang Susan Motlhabane; Respondent: Utho Capital (PTY) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 November 2022
Case Number
JS120/21
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Referral of Statement of Case
Outcome
Condonation for the late referral of the statement of case is granted. No order as to costs.
Judges
M Sass
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Retrenchment, Section 191 Lra, Prospects of Success
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Unfair Dismissal Retrenchment Section 191 Lra Prospects of Success

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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pertunia Masinga

Applicant

Lebohang Susan Motlhabane

Applicant

Utho Capital (PTY) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Referral of Statement of Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have provided a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the delay in referring their unfair dismissal dispute to the Labour Court.
  2. 2 Whether the delay of sixty-five days in filing the statement of case is excessive and justifies refusal of condonation.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have demonstrated prospects of success in the main unfair dismissal dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay of sixty-five days in filing the statement of case was not unacceptably excessive, particularly in the context of action proceedings. The applicants provided a reasonable and bona fide explanation for the delay, which was largely due to an erroneous referral to the CCMA and incorrect advice regarding the calculation of the ninety-day period. The explanation covered both parts of the delay, including the time taken to seek legal representation after being denied pro bono assistance. The applicants demonstrated at least some prospects of success in the main unfair dismissal dispute, as their allegations regarding the retrenchment process, selection criteria,...

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late referral of the statement of case is granted. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is granted.
  • There is no order as to costs.