Minister of Home Affairs v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR2290/2013) [2017] ZALCJHB 242 (15 February 2017)
The court found that the applicant's explanation for the 21-month delay was wholly inadequate and fell far short of the standard required for condonation. The explanation, which relied on logistical difficulties between offices in Pretoria and Johannesburg, did not constitute a reasonable or acceptable justification...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] ZALCJHB 242
- Parties
- Applicant: Minister of Home Affairs; Respondent: General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council; Respondent: Malumbete, Vulani N.O.; Respondent: Simpson, Claude Peter
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR2290/2013
- Procedural Posture
- Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Review
- Outcome
- Application for condonation dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Barnes
- Legal Topics
- Condonation for Late Filing, Review Application Delay, Reasonable Explanation for Delay
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Minister of Home Affairs
Applicant
General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council
Respondent
Malumbete, Vulani N.O.
Respondent
Simpson, Claude Peter
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the 21-month delay in filing the review application.
- 2 Whether the absence of a reasonable explanation precludes consideration of prospects of success in a condonation application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's explanation for the 21-month delay was wholly inadequate and fell far short of the standard required for condonation. The explanation, which relied on logistical difficulties between offices in Pretoria and Johannesburg, did not constitute a reasonable or acceptable justification for such a lengthy delay. In the absence of a reasonable explanation, the court was not required to consider the applicant's prospects of success. Accordingly, the application for condonation was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
Application for condonation dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The applicant's application for condonation for the late filing of its review application is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Case No: JR2290/2013
In the matter between:
MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
Applicant
and
GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL
BARGAINING COUNCIL
First
Respondent
MALUMBETE, VULANI N.O.
Second Respondent
SIMPSON, CLAUDE PETER
Third Respondent
Heard:
15 February 2017
Date of Judgment: 15 February 2017
EX-TEMPORE JUDGMENT
BARNES AJ
[1] This is an application for condonation for the late filing of the applicant’s review application. The review application was in terms of the rules required to be filed on or before the 31st of January 2012. It was only filed on the 24th of October 2014. It is therefore approximately 21 months late. This is self-evidently a long delay.
[2] The applicant’s explanation for its delay is set out in its answering affidavit at paginated page 12 thereof. The explanation is set out in a full paragraphs. It is to the effect that upon receipt of the award it had to be perused and consideration had to be given to whether review proceedings ought to be brought or not. Thereafter the officer of the State Attorney was instructed, thereafter counsel was briefed, and thereafter the review application was transmitted to the deponent to the founding affidavit
who is the Deputy Director Labour Relations in the Department of Home Affairs. He had to consider the application, make comments and return it to the office of the State Attorney.
[3] The deponent states that the affidavit in support of the application was then transmitted back to him for his signature. The following submission is then made in the answering affidavit:
“In the circumstances I submit that the delay was occasioned by logistical matters in view of the fact that our offices are in Pretoria whereas the office of the State Attorney is in Johannesburg and counsel is also based in Johannesburg.”
[4] It then goes on to say,
“It was therefore a logistical problem to convene consultations when people are disbursed.”
[5] That is the full extent of the delay, of the explanation for the delay. It is, in my view itself evidently falls dramatically short of the standard that is required for an explanation for delay particularly for such a long period, 21 months in this case.
[6] In my view this cannot conceivably constitute a reasonable or acceptable explanation for the delay. There being no reasonable or acceptable explanation before this court for the delay it is not necessary for the court to have regard to the applicant’s prospects of success in considering the application for condonation. See in this regard Melanie v Santam Insurance Company Ltd 1962(4) SA 531 Appellant Division.
[7] For these reasons the applicant’s application for condonation for the late filing of its review application is dismissed with costs.
__________________________
Heidi Barnes
Acting Judge of the Labour Court