MEWUSA obo Mahatola and Others v F and J Electrical (JS1002/09) [2016] ZALCJHB 381 (4 October 2016)
The court found that while the applicants' initial misconception regarding the need for condonation could be excused up to the date of the Constitutional Court judgment, their subsequent failure to act was not justified. The applicants did not provide any compelling reason for their continued inaction or for why the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] ZALCJHB 381
- Parties
- Applicant: MEWUSA obo Mahatola, Elijah & 15 Others; Respondent: F&J Electrical
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JS1002/09
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Dismissal of Condonation Application
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Lagrange
- Legal Topics
- Condonation for Late Referral, Retrenchment Dispute, Prospects of Success, Leave to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
MEWUSA obo Mahatola, Elijah & 15 Others
Applicant
F&J Electrical
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Dismissal of Condonation Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants provided sufficient justification for failing to file a condonation application after the Constitutional Court judgment of 17 February 2015.
- 2 Whether the court erred in its assessment of the applicants' prospects of success on appeal.
- 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted in terms of section 17(1)(h)(i) of the Superior Courts Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the applicants' initial misconception regarding the need for condonation could be excused up to the date of the Constitutional Court judgment, their subsequent failure to act was not justified. The applicants did not provide any compelling reason for their continued inaction or for why the court's evaluation of their prospects of success was incorrect. The judge concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
Case no: JS 1002/09
Not reportable
In the matter between:
MEWUSA obo MAHATOLA, ELIJAH & 15 OTHERS Applicants and F&J ELECTRICAL Respondent
LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT
LAGRANGE J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against a ruling dismissing an application for condonation for the late referral of the applicants’ retrenchment dispute. The matter had been set down for trial in April this year and the applicants had failed to file an application for the late filing of their statement of case despite being aware since 17 February 2015, in terms of a constitutional court judgement that it was necessary for them to obtain late condonation for the referral.
[2] In essence, the grounds of appeal reiterates the reasons why the applicants did not originally refer their dispute timeously and why they failed to apply for condonation for the late referral when they did so. In my judgement, I accepted that until the Constitutional Court decision of 17 February 2015, their misconception about the need to file a condonation application might be excused, but it did not excuse the subsequent inaction in the absence of an exceptionally good justification for not doing anything after the Constitutional Court judgement.
[3] In their grounds of appeal, the applicants fail to provide any good reason why the court was wrong in its evaluation of the absence of any good reason for the applicants failure to file a condonation application as soon as possible after the judgement on 17 February 2015, or why the court’s assessment of their prospects of success was wrong.
[4] In terms of section 17 (1) (h) (i) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013, aside from other circumstances which are not applicable in this case, leave to appeal may only be granted if a judge is of the opinion that the appeal would have “a reasonable prospect of success” that does not mean that merely because another court might come to a different conclusion leave to appeal should be granted. The court must also consider if that is not merely a theoretical possibility but there is some likelihood that this would be the case. I am not satisfied for the reasons mentioned
above that the applicants have succeeded in establishing that there is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
Order
[5] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
_______________________
Lagrange J
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
(In Chambers)
4 October 2016