Mhlanga v BMW SA (JR854/02) [2002] ZALC 173 (15 October 2002)

Mhlanga v BMW SA (JR854/02) [2002] ZALC 173 (15 October 2002)

The court held that the applicant's explanation for the delay was unacceptable, as he merely blamed his union and the respondent without providing a substantive reason for the lateness. The commissioner exercised discretion in refusing condonation, and there were no grounds for the court to interfere with this decision. The prospects of success were not sufficiently demonstrated to justify condonation.

Citation
[2002] ZALC 173
Parties
Applicant: D C Mhlanga; Respondent: BMW SA
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 October 2002
Case Number
JR854/02
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Condonation Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Revelas
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Referral, Ccma Procedure, Exercise of Discretion
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Referral Ccma Procedure Exercise of Discretion

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D C Mhlanga

Applicant

BMW SA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Condonation Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA commissioner's refusal to grant condonation for late referral was reviewable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided an acceptable explanation for the delay in referral.
  3. 3 Whether the prospects of success justified interference with the commissioner's discretion.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's explanation for the delay was unacceptable, as he merely blamed his union and the respondent without providing a substantive reason for the lateness. The commissioner exercised discretion in refusing condonation, and there were no grounds for the court to interfere with this decision. The prospects of success were not sufficiently demonstrated to justify condonation.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.