Mohlabane and Another v MCS Logistics and Another (JS521-20) [2021] ZALCJHB 110 (27 May 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] ZALCJHB 110
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- F Coetzee
- Case number
- JS521-20
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- F Coetzee
- Case number
- JS521-20
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that while the explanation for the delay due to lockdown restrictions was adequate, the applicants failed to address their prospects of success on the merits and did not deal with prejudice to the parties. In the absence of any indication of prospects of success, the application for condonation could not be granted. The application to amend the statement of claim was not opposed, but as condonation was not granted, the court declined to deal with the amendment. The matter was struck from the roll and no costs order was made.
Court disposition
Application for condonation dismissed; matter struck from the roll; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The application for condonation is dismissed.
- The matter is struck from the roll.
- There is no order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
TB Mohlabane
ApplicantS A Thwala
ApplicantMCS Logistics
RespondentHCV Insurance Brokers
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Condonation Application / Interlocutory
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether condonation should be granted for the late referral of the statement of case.
- 02
Whether the applicants have provided a sufficient explanation for the delay.
- 03
Whether the applicants have addressed prospects of success on the merits.
- 04
Whether prejudice to the parties has been addressed.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants contend that the delay in referring the statement of case was due to travel restrictions imposed by the Level 2 lockdown, which prevented the first applicant from travelling until 17 August 2020. Upon the easing of restrictions, the applicants acted promptly to serve and file the necessary papers. They do not address prospects of success or prejudice.
- Respondent
- The respondents did not oppose the application for condonation or the application to amend the statement of claim. No arguments were submitted.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
National Union of Mineworkers v Council for Mineral Technology [1999] 3 BLLR 209 (LAC)
Condonation may only be granted if the applicant provides a satisfactory explanation for the delay and demonstrates prospects of success on the merits.
- 02
Melane v Santam Insurance Co Ltd 1962 (4) SA 531 (A)
The absence of information regarding prospects of success is fatal to an application for condonation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that while the explanation for the delay due to lockdown restrictions was adequate, the applicants failed to address their prospects of success on the merits and did not deal with prejudice to the parties. In the absence of any indication of prospects of success, the application for condonation could not be granted. The application to amend the statement of claim was not opposed, but as condonation was not granted, the court declined to deal with the amendment. The matter was struck from the roll and no costs order was made.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that unopposed applications for amendment should follow the Rules if condonation is granted.
- The matter was determined on paper without oral argument.
Court disposition
Application for condonation dismissed; matter struck from the roll; no order as to costs.
- The application for condonation is dismissed.
- The matter is struck from the roll.
- There is no order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Judgment
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case no: JS521-20
In the matter between:
TB
MOHLABANE
First Applicant
S
A
THWALA Second Respondent
and
MCS
LOGISTICS First Respondent
HCV
INSURANCE BROKERS
Second Respondent
Heard: 27 May 2021
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the partiesâ representatives by email and release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10h00 on 27 May 2021.
Summary: Condonation
JUDGMENT
COETZEE, AJ
[1] The applicants seek condonation for the late referral of the statement of case.
The delay
[2] The certificate of outcome is dated 17 March 2020. The 90-day period expired on or about 15 June 2020. The statement of claim was referred to the Labour Court on 25 August 2020.
[3] The applicant calculates the delay to be 19 days. It in actual fact is a delay of approximately 2 months.
[4] The explanation for the delay is that the first applicant was unable to travel until 17 August 2020 when the Level 2 lockdown was introduced allowing interprovincial travelling. He then visited the second applicant and within 5 days after the introduction of Level 2 he served and filed the papers.
[5] The applicants do not deal with the prospects of success on the merits.
[6] The applicants also do not address any prejudice to the parties.
[7] This Court cannot grant condonation in the absence of an indication as to the applicants' prospects of success on the merits. The explanation seems adequate but in the absence of any information on the prospects of success the application for condonation must be dismissed.
[8] The applicants also referred to an application to amend their statement of claim. This application and the main application at this point in time are unopposed. As the amendment is not opposed this Court is disinclined to deal with it as the applicants can follow the Rules to amend their statement of case if condonation is granted.
Costs
[9] This is an interlocutory matter where the respondent is successful. Having regard to the relevant factors there is no reason to make a costs order.
[10] The following order is hereby made:
Order
1. The application for condonation is dismissed.
2. The matter is struck from the roll.
3. There is no order as to costs.
F. Coetzee
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
The matter has been determined on paper.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.