Mkhatshwa v Shaduka Coal (PTY) Ltd (JS28/16) [2022] ZALCJHB 315 (7 November 2022)

Mkhatshwa v Shaduka Coal (PTY) Ltd (JS28/16) [2022] ZALCJHB 315 (7 November 2022)

The application for condonation was filed 40 days late, which is excessive. The explanation provided by the applicant, namely the forwarding of the judgment to the wrong email address and the attorney's engagement in another matter, is unreasonable and does not constitute a sufficient basis for condonation. The applicant conceded that his comparators were performing different functions, which undermines his pay discrimination claim. Upon consideration of all relevant factors, including the lack of reasonable prospects of success and the absence of a reasonable explanation for the delay, the court finds that condonation should not be granted. The application for leave to appeal is...

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 315
Parties
Applicant: Sipho Mbekwa Mkhatshwa; Respondent: Shaduka Coal (PTY) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 November 2022
Case Number
JS28/16
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation
Outcome
Condonation application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
P Nkutha-Nkontwana
Legal Topics
Condonation, Leave to Appeal, Pay Discrimination, Practice Manual, Late Filing
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Leave to Appeal Pay Discrimination Practice Manual Late Filing

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sipho Mbekwa Mkhatshwa

Applicant

Shaduka Coal (PTY) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the explanation for the delay is reasonable and acceptable.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for condonation was filed 40 days late, which is excessive. The explanation provided by the applicant, namely the forwarding of the judgment to the wrong email address and the attorney's engagement in another matter, is unreasonable and does not constitute a sufficient basis for condonation. The applicant conceded that his comparators were performing different functions, which undermines his pay discrimination claim. Upon consideration of all relevant factors, including the lack of reasonable prospects of success and the absence of a reasonable explanation for the delay, the court finds that condonation should not be granted. The application for leave to appeal is...

Court Disposition

Condonation application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The condonation application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.