Matjila v Milanzi NO and Others (JR 2130/2020) [2023] ZALCJHB 208 (19 July 2023)

Matjila v Milanzi NO and Others (JR 2130/2020) [2023] ZALCJHB 208 (19 July 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for the excessive delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. The explanation, based on hearsay and unsupported by a confirmatory affidavit, was bald and lacked detail. Even if prospects of success were considered, the applicant did not establish any, as her arguments merely repeated submissions previously rejected. The stringent test for review applications was not met, and the third respondent's right to finality was emphasized. Accordingly, condonation was refused and the application dismissed.

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 208
Parties
Applicant: Mathoma Beatrice Matjila; Respondent: Issac Milanzi N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: South African Revenue Services
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 July 2023
Case Number
JR 2130/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
Outcome
Condonation for late filing refused; application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Filing, Review of Arbitration Award, Prospects of Success, Delay Explanation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation for Late Filing Review of Arbitration Award Prospects of Success Delay Explanation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathoma Beatrice Matjila

Applicant

Issac Milanzi N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

South African Revenue Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established sufficient prospects of success to justify condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for the excessive delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. The explanation, based on hearsay and unsupported by a confirmatory affidavit, was bald and lacked detail. Even if prospects of success were considered, the applicant did not establish any, as her arguments merely repeated submissions previously rejected. The stringent test for review applications was not met, and the third respondent's right to finality was emphasized. Accordingly, condonation was refused and the application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Condonation for late filing refused; application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The application is dismissed.