Mhlanga v BMW SA (JR854/02) [2002] ZALCJHB 13 (15 October 2002)

Mhlanga v BMW SA (JR854/02) [2002] ZALCJHB 13 (15 October 2002)

The Labour Court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay in referring his dispute to the CCMA was unsatisfactory, as he failed to provide a credible reason for the lateness and merely blamed his union and the respondent. The commissioner exercised his discretion in refusing condonation, and there were no grounds for the court to interfere with that decision. The prospects of success were not sufficiently established to warrant condonation. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed.

Citation
[2002] ZALCJHB 13
Parties
Applicant: D C Mhlanga; Respondent: BMW SA
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 October 2002
Case Number
JR854/02
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Revelas
Legal Topics
Condonation, Ccma Review, Late Referral, Discretion of Commissioner
Labour Law Condonation Ccma Review Late Referral Discretion of Commissioner

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D C Mhlanga

Applicant

BMW SA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay in referring his dispute to the CCMA was unsatisfactory, as he failed to provide a credible reason for the lateness and merely blamed his union and the respondent. The commissioner exercised his discretion in refusing condonation, and there were no grounds for the court to interfere with that decision. The prospects of success were not sufficiently established to warrant condonation. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.