Mbema v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (PR04/2015) [2018] ZALCPE 23 (23 August 2018)

Mbema v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (PR04/2015) [2018] ZALCPE 23 (23 August 2018)

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the prescribed time limits for filing the transcribed record and did not seek an extension from the third respondent or the Judge President. The delay of approximately 22 months was not adequately explained, and the applicant did not demonstrate any prospects of success on the merits of the review application. The court held that the prejudice claimed by the applicant was self-inflicted due to lack of diligence, and that the third respondent would suffer greater prejudice if reinstatement were granted. Accordingly, no case was made out for reinstatement of the review application deemed withdrawn under clause 11.2.3 of the Practice...

Citation
[2018] ZALCPE 23
Parties
Applicant: Xoliswa Mbema; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Anthony Mare N.O; Respondent: SA Post Office
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 2018
Case Number
PR04/2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Reinstate Withdrawn Review
Outcome
Application to reinstate the review application is dismissed.
Judges
E Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Practice Manual Compliance, Review Application Reinstatement, Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Irregularity
Labour Law Civil Procedure Practice Manual Compliance Review Application Reinstatement Unfair Dismissal Procedural Irregularity

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Xoliswa Mbema

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Anthony Mare N.O

Respondent

SA Post Office

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Reinstate Withdrawn Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for reinstatement of a review application deemed withdrawn under clause 11.2.3 of the Practice Manual.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the review application is adequately explained.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has demonstrated prospects of success on the merits of the review application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the prescribed time limits for filing the transcribed record and did not seek an extension from the third respondent or the Judge President. The delay of approximately 22 months was not adequately explained, and the applicant did not demonstrate any prospects of success on the merits of the review application. The court held that the prejudice claimed by the applicant was self-inflicted due to lack of diligence, and that the third respondent would suffer greater prejudice if reinstatement were granted. Accordingly, no case was made out for reinstatement of the review application deemed withdrawn under clause 11.2.3 of the Practice...

Court Disposition

Application to reinstate the review application is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to reinstate the review application deemed to have been withdrawn by virtue of the provisions of Clause 11.2.3 of this Court’s Practice Manual is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.