Mhlanga v BMW SA (JR854/02) [2002] ZALC 173 (15 October 2002)
- Citation
- [2002] ZALC 173
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court
- Panel
- Revelas
- Case number
- JR854/02
More details
- Court
- Labour Court
- Panel
- Revelas
- Case number
- JR854/02
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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.
02
Material facts
Parties
D C Mhlanga
ApplicantBMW SA
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of CCMA Condonation Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the CCMA commissioner's refusal to grant condonation for late referral was reviewable.
- 02
Whether the applicant provided an acceptable explanation for the delay in referral.
- 03
Whether the prospects of success justified interference with the commissioner's discretion.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the delay in referring the dispute to the CCMA was due to the actions of his union and the respondent, and that condonation should be granted as the delay was not entirely his fault.
- Respondent
- The respondent contended that the explanation for the delay was inadequate, as the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory reason for the lateness and did not demonstrate sufficient prospects of success to warrant condonation.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
Commissioners of the CCMA must deal with matters expeditiously and exercise discretion when granting condonation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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.
Obiter and limits
- Commissioners are required to deal with matters expeditiously under the Labour Relations Act.
Court disposition
Application dismissed.
- The application for review is dismissed.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court
Judgment
Sneller Verbatim/HDJ
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JR854/02
2002-10-15
In the matter between
D C MHLANGA Applicant
and
BMW SA Respondent
________________
J U D G M E N T
REVELAS J:
1. This is an application in terms of section 168, where the applicant seeks to review and set aside a condonation ruling made by the second respondent, who found that the application for condonation brought at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, had no merits.
1. 1.
2. The delay in question was 6½ months and was received on 18 June 2001 and was referred to the CCMA on 8 February 2002. The commissioner who heard the application, found that the explanation provided by the applicant for the lateness of his referral is unacceptable in that he blames his union and the respondent, whose appearance was delayed between the date of the receipt and 10 December 2001, which provides no explanation for the delay.
3. The second respondent also found that the applicant did not show consent and that the delay finding was unacceptable. The second respondent found, and also in so far as the prospects of success were concerned, that it only seems good in the absence of any counter argument.
4. The commissioners of the CCMA are enjoined do deal with matters expeditiously in terms of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. In granting condonation they exercise a discretion. On the grounds provided for by the applicant in this matter there are no grounds upon which I am persuaded to interfere in the exercise of the discretion of the second respondent.
5. In the circumstances the application is dismissed.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.