Mhlari v Safety and Security Sectorial Bargaining Council and Others (JR198/2015) [2017] ZALCJHB 327 (12 September 2017)

Mhlari v Safety and Security Sectorial Bargaining Council and Others (JR198/2015) [2017] ZALCJHB 327 (12 September 2017)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the extensive delay of 278 days in filing the review application. The applicant's reliance on his union, without taking any steps to ascertain the status of his case for several months, was not a sufficient...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 327
Parties
Applicant: Zinyembezi Lloyd Mhlari; Respondent: Safety and Security Sectorial Bargaining Council; Respondent: Commissioner Prince Kekana N.O.; Respondent: South African Police Services
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 September 2017
Case Number
JR198/2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation of Late Review
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed; applicant ordered to pay costs.
Judges
R Edmonds
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Delay in Filing, Prejudice
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Delay in Filing Prejudice

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Zinyembezi Lloyd Mhlari

Applicant

Safety and Security Sectorial Bargaining Council

Respondent

Commissioner Prince Kekana N.O.

Respondent

South African Police Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation of Late Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided a reasonable and adequate explanation for the extensive delay in filing the review application.
  2. 2 Whether condonation for the late filing of the review application should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the merits of the review application need to be considered in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the extensive delay of 278 days in filing the review application. The applicant's reliance on his union, without taking any steps to ascertain the status of his case for several months, was not a sufficient justification. The court held that, in line with established legal principles, where there is no adequate explanation for the delay, it is unnecessary to consider the merits of the review application. The prejudice to the respondent, including difficulties in tracing witnesses and faded memories, further weighed against granting condonation. Accordingly, the application for condonation was...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed; applicant ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to make payment of the costs of this application.