Mkhize v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D95/2011) [2013] ZALCD 13 (13 June 2013)

Mkhize v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (D95/2011) [2013] ZALCD 13 (13 June 2013)

The applicant failed to provide a full, reasonable, and detailed explanation for the five-week delay in filing the review application. The explanation offered was superficial, did not cover the entire period of delay, and lacked credibility. The court reiterated that, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the prospects of success are irrelevant. Even considering the applicant's grounds of review, there was no basis to conclude that the arbitration award was one that a reasonable decision maker could not have reached. The delay was substantial and the applicant's approach to condonation was cavalier and disdainful of the rules. Accordingly, the application for condonation was...

Citation
[2013] ZALCD 13
Parties
Applicant: Michael Mkhize; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Vino Subramoney; Respondent: Snackworks
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 June 2013
Case Number
D95/2011
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Review
Outcome
Application for condonation for late filing of review dismissed with costs.
Judges
D H Gush
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Labour Relations Act, Reasonable Explanation for Delay
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Labour Relations Act Reasonable Explanation for Delay

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Mkhize

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Vino Subramoney

Respondent

Snackworks

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the late filing of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the prospects of success can outweigh an inadequate explanation for delay in condonation applications.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award was reviewable on the basis that no reasonable decision maker could have reached the same conclusion.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a full, reasonable, and detailed explanation for the five-week delay in filing the review application. The explanation offered was superficial, did not cover the entire period of delay, and lacked credibility. The court reiterated that, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the prospects of success are irrelevant. Even considering the applicant's grounds of review, there was no basis to conclude that the arbitration award was one that a reasonable decision maker could not have reached. The delay was substantial and the applicant's approach to condonation was cavalier and disdainful of the rules. Accordingly, the application for condonation was...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation for late filing of review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for condonation for the late filing of the review is dismissed with costs.