Mbele v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Another (JR 1270/08) [2010] ZALC 89 (4 February 2010)

Mbele v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Another (JR 1270/08) [2010] ZALC 89 (4 February 2010)

The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the lengthy delay in filing the review application, particularly for the period after instructing new attorneys. The evidence presented did not support a reasonable prospect of success in the review, as the findings of the commissioner were based on largely uncontested and corroborated evidence. The alleged procedural irregularity regarding the commissioner’s notes did not amount to bias or unfairness. The requirements for condonation, as set out in Melane v Santam, were not met, and the application was accordingly dismissed.

Citation
[2010] ZALC 89
Parties
Applicant: Mbele Pahakamisa Godrey; Respondent: Commissioner, Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Anglo Platinum Mines Rustenburg
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 February 2010
Case Number
JR 1270/08
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Referral of Review
Outcome
Condonation application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Condonation, Review of Arbitration Award, Unreasonable Delay, Prospects of Success
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Review of Arbitration Award Unreasonable Delay 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mbele Pahakamisa Godrey

Applicant

Commissioner, Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Anglo Platinum Mines Rustenburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Referral of Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated reasonable prospects of success in the review application.
  3. 3 Whether the failure of the commissioner to keep written notes constituted bias or procedural unfairness.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the lengthy delay in filing the review application, particularly for the period after instructing new attorneys. The evidence presented did not support a reasonable prospect of success in the review, as the findings of the commissioner were based on largely uncontested and corroborated evidence. The alleged procedural irregularity regarding the commissioner’s notes did not amount to bias or unfairness. The requirements for condonation, as set out in Melane v Santam, were not met, and the application was accordingly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Condonation application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicant’s condonation application for the late referral of his review application is dismissed.
  • No award is made as to costs.