Mavasa and Another v SSSBC and Others (JR1286/11) [2015] ZALCJHB 319 (7 August 2015)

Mavasa and Another v SSSBC and Others (JR1286/11) [2015] ZALCJHB 319 (7 August 2015)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory and reasonable explanation for the significant delay in filing the review application. The explanation was vague, with substantial periods unaccounted for, and demonstrated complacency regarding compliance with the rules. The applicants did not provide corroborating affidavits or evidence to support their claims. The court held that, in accordance with established case law, prospects of success are irrelevant where the explanation for delay is inadequate. Furthermore, the grounds of review advanced by the applicants were not substantiated, as the arbitrator had provided clear and reasoned findings based on appropriate...

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 319
Parties
Applicant: Edward Mavasa; Applicant: Dumisani Baloyi; Respondent: SSSBC; Respondent: Zodwa Mdlala N.O; Respondent: SAPS
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 August 2015
Case Number
JR1286/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Review
Outcome
Application for condonation of late filing of review dismissed.
Judges
Whitcher
Legal Topics
Condonation, Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness, Lateness, Prospects of Success
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Review of Arbitration Award Procedural Fairness Lateness 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Mavasa

Applicant

Dumisani Baloyi

Applicant

SSSBC

Respondent

Zodwa Mdlala N.O

Respondent

SAPS

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the review application.
  2. 2 Whether condonation for the late filing of the review application should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's award was reviewable on the grounds advanced by the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory and reasonable explanation for the significant delay in filing the review application. The explanation was vague, with substantial periods unaccounted for, and demonstrated complacency regarding compliance with the rules. The applicants did not provide corroborating affidavits or evidence to support their claims. The court held that, in accordance with established case law, prospects of success are irrelevant where the explanation for delay is inadequate. Furthermore, the grounds of review advanced by the applicants were not substantiated, as the arbitrator had provided clear and reasoned findings based on appropriate...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation of late filing of review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to condone the late filing of the application to review and set aside the second respondent's arbitration award is dismissed with no order as to costs.