Mayekiso v Jamodien and Others (C201/2017) [2024] ZALCCT 31 (10 July 2024)

Mayekiso v Jamodien and Others (C201/2017) [2024] ZALCCT 31 (10 July 2024)

The applicant failed to provide a full and acceptable explanation for the lengthy delay in filing the record for review. Despite being given an opportunity to supplement her affidavit, the explanation remained incomplete, lacking meaningful detail and critical dates. The applicant did not pursue available options such as reconstruction of the record or seeking directions from the Judge President. The explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory and porous, and the applicant assumed, incorrectly, that reinstatement was automatic. Given the absence of a satisfactory explanation, it was unnecessary to consider prospects of success. The application for reinstatement was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2024] ZALCCT 31
Parties
Applicant: Nomzamo Mayekiso; Respondent: Commissioner Tariq Jamodien; Respondent: Department of Home Affairs General Public Service; Respondent: Sectoral Bargaining Council
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 July 2024
Case Number
C201/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Reinstatement of Lapsed Review
Outcome
Application for reinstatement of the review application is dismissed.
Judges
Leslie
Legal Topics
Condonation, Practice Manual Provisions, Reinstatement of Review, Delay Explanation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Practice Manual Provisions Reinstatement of Review 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nomzamo Mayekiso

Applicant

Commissioner Tariq Jamodien

Respondent

Department of Home Affairs General Public Service

Respondent

Sectoral Bargaining Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Reinstatement of Lapsed Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the substantial delay in filing the record for review.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated good cause for reinstatement of the lapsed review application.
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to condone the delay and reinstate the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a full and acceptable explanation for the lengthy delay in filing the record for review. Despite being given an opportunity to supplement her affidavit, the explanation remained incomplete, lacking meaningful detail and critical dates. The applicant did not pursue available options such as reconstruction of the record or seeking directions from the Judge President. The explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory and porous, and the applicant assumed, incorrectly, that reinstatement was automatic. Given the absence of a satisfactory explanation, it was unnecessary to consider prospects of success. The application for reinstatement was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for reinstatement of the review application is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for reinstatement of the review application under the above case number is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.