Mngomezulu and Another v Mulima NO and Others (JR2744/12) [2017] ZALCJHB 402 (7 November 2017)

Mngomezulu and Another v Mulima NO and Others (JR2744/12) [2017] ZALCJHB 402 (7 November 2017)

The applicants failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the inordinate delay of three years and four months in filing their review application. The court found that the reasons advanced—delay by their union, financial constraints, and waiting for pension payouts—were superficial, unconvincing, and did not cover the entire period of delay. The applicants were advised to save money to pursue the review but did not act promptly, and after receiving their pension payouts, they delayed a further ten months before filing. The court held that a litigant cannot simply hand over responsibility to their representative and wash their hands of the matter. The principle of...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 402
Parties
Applicant: Stephen Mngomezulu and Other; Respondent: Denga Mulima N.O.; Respondent: Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council; Respondent: South African Police Services
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 November 2017
Case Number
JR 2744/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Condonation Application
Outcome
Condonation application refused.
Judges
Molebaloa MS
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Delay in Filing, Prospects of Success
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Unfair Dismissal Delay in Filing Prospects of Success

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 7 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Mngomezulu and Other

Applicant

Denga Mulima N.O.

Respondent

Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council

Respondent

South African Police Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Condonation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for condonation of the late filing of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for the delay is reasonable and covers the entire period.
  3. 3 Whether the prospects of success can compensate for an inadequate explanation for delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the inordinate delay of three years and four months in filing their review application. The court found that the reasons advanced—delay by their union, financial constraints, and waiting for pension payouts—were superficial, unconvincing, and did not cover the entire period of delay. The applicants were advised to save money to pursue the review but did not act promptly, and after receiving their pension payouts, they delayed a further ten months before filing. The court held that a litigant cannot simply hand over responsibility to their representative and wash their hands of the matter. The principle of...

Court Disposition

Condonation application refused.

Orders

  • Condonation application is refused.
  • There is no order as to costs.