Mathanda and Another v Greater Kokstad Municipality and Others (D1337/19) [2021] ZALCD 76 (14 December 2021)

Mathanda and Another v Greater Kokstad Municipality and Others (D1337/19) [2021] ZALCD 76 (14 December 2021)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their failure to deliver the record within the prescribed period and for not seeking an extension timeously. The explanations offered, including office closure and attorney workload, were deemed unreasonable and did not justify the delay. The applicants also failed to explain significant periods of delay and did not demonstrate any urgency in delivering the record. Furthermore, the grounds of review listed did not challenge the arbitration award itself and did not establish any prospects of success. As a result, both the application for reinstatement and condonation were refused.

Citation
[2021] ZALCD 76
Parties
Applicant: B. N Mathanda & 1 Other; Respondent: Greater Kokstad Municipality; Respondent: South African Local Government Bargaining Council; Respondent: Asha Sewpersad N.O
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2021
Case Number
D1337/19
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Reinstatement and Condonation After Deemed Withdrawal of Review
Outcome
Application for reinstatement of the review application dismissed; condonation for late filing of the record refused; no order as to costs.
Judges
Moodley
Legal Topics
Condonation, Practice Manual Clauses, Review of Arbitration Award, Misconduct Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Practice Manual Clauses Review of Arbitration Award Misconduct Dismissal

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. N Mathanda & 1 Other

Applicant

Greater Kokstad Municipality

Respondent

South African Local Government Bargaining Council

Respondent

Asha Sewpersad N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Reinstatement and Condonation After Deemed Withdrawal of Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for failing to deliver the record within the prescribed period.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to reinstatement of the review application deemed withdrawn.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for the late filing of the record should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their failure to deliver the record within the prescribed period and for not seeking an extension timeously. The explanations offered, including office closure and attorney workload, were deemed unreasonable and did not justify the delay. The applicants also failed to explain significant periods of delay and did not demonstrate any urgency in delivering the record. Furthermore, the grounds of review listed did not challenge the arbitration award itself and did not establish any prospects of success. As a result, both the application for reinstatement and condonation were refused.

Court Disposition

Application for reinstatement of the review application dismissed; condonation for late filing of the record refused; no order as to costs.

Orders

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