Moabelo and Others v Christal Clean Hygiene and Cleaning Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR1004/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 115 (22 May 2019)

Moabelo and Others v Christal Clean Hygiene and Cleaning Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR1004/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 115 (22 May 2019)

The court found that the delay of more than two years in filing the review application was excessive and that the applicants' explanation for the delay was vague, incomplete, and unsatisfactory. The applicants failed to provide specific dates or details regarding their efforts to obtain legal assistance, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 115
Parties
Applicant: Rosinah Moabelo and Others; Respondent: Christal Clean Hygiene and Cleaning Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Sam Alidzulwi Muvhango N.O
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 May 2019
Case Number
JR1004/17
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation of Late Review Filing
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed.
Judges
T Ntshebe
Legal Topics
Condonation, Review Application, Excessive Delay, Unsatisfactory Explanation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Review Application Excessive Delay Unsatisfactory Explanation

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

Rosinah Moabelo and Others

Applicant

Christal Clean Hygiene and Cleaning Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Sam Alidzulwi Muvhango N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation of Late Review Filing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have provided a reasonable explanation for the excessive delay in filing the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the interests of justice warrant the granting of condonation despite the delay.
  3. 3 Whether the prospects of success should be considered in light of the delay and explanation provided.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay of more than two years in filing the review application was excessive and that the applicants' explanation for the delay was vague, incomplete, and unsatisfactory. The applicants failed to provide specific dates or details regarding their efforts to obtain legal assistance, and significant periods remained unexplained. Applying established legal principles, the court held that such a gross and unexplained delay justified refusal of condonation without considering the prospects of success. The interests of justice did not support granting condonation in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for condonation in respect of the review application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.