Mokgosana v South African Police Services and Others (JR2599/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 296 (25 August 2015)
The court found that the applicant's review application was filed two months late, as evidenced by the fax transmission of the condonation ruling on 24 July 2012 and the application being launched on 23 October 2012. The applicant failed to provide any explanation for the delay or to apply for condonation, despite...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] ZALCJHB 296
- Parties
- Applicant: Mokgosana Lesibana Shirley; Respondent: South African Police Services; Respondent: Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council; Respondent: FJ van der Merwe
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR2599/12
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Judgment on Preliminary Point (late Filing of Review Application)
- Outcome
- Review application dismissed due to late filing and absence of condonation.
- Judges
- Malan
- Legal Topics
- Review of Condonation Ruling, Late Filing, Section 145 Lra, Condonation Application
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mokgosana Lesibana Shirley
Applicant
South African Police Services
Respondent
Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council
Respondent
FJ van der Merwe
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Preliminary Point (late Filing of Review Application)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's review application was filed out of time.
- 2 Whether the applicant provided an explanation or sought condonation for the late filing.
- 3 Whether the condonation ruling was properly communicated to the parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's review application was filed two months late, as evidenced by the fax transmission of the condonation ruling on 24 July 2012 and the application being launched on 23 October 2012. The applicant failed to provide any explanation for the delay or to apply for condonation, despite the issue being raised by the respondent. The court also noted further unexplained delays in filing the record and supplementary affidavit. In the absence of any explanation or condonation application, the court upheld the preliminary point and dismissed the review application.
Court Disposition
Review application dismissed due to late filing and absence of condonation.
Orders
- The point in limine regarding the late referral of the review application is upheld.
- The review application is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
CASE NO: JR2599/12
In the matter between:
MOKGOSANA LESIBANA SHIRLEY
Applicant
And
SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES
First Respondent
SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTORAL
BARGAINING COUNCIL
Second
Respondent
FJ VAN DER MERWE
Third Respondent
Heard: 3 July 2015
Delivered: 3 July 2015
Edited: 25 August 2015
EX-TEMPORE JUDGMENT
MALAN AJ
[1] The matter before me concerns an application in terms of section 145 of the Labour Relations Act, No. 66 of 1995, to have a condonation ruling issued by the second respondent reviewed and set aside.
[2] Ex facie the papers, the review application, was launched on 23 October 2012. This appears to be common cause between the parties. As a preliminary objection, the first respondent has raised the issue that the review application was delivered late. It appears from the ruling (which the applicant seeks to have reviewed) that it was handed down on 23 July 2012 and transmitted by fax transmission by the second respondent to the parties on 24 July 2012. In this regard reliance is placed on page 91 of the record, which is the fax cover sheet dealing with the condonation ruling. This issue was specifically raised by the first respondent in answer to the review application. This allegation has not been dealt with by the applicant.
[3] I have no reason to doubt the inferences that the first respondent seeks me to draw, ex facie at least, from the fax cover sheet. In the circumstances, it appears, at least in my mind, that the documentation supports the first respondent’s contention that the ruling was sent to the parties on 24 July 2012. Based on those facts, it the review application is indeed two (2) months late. There is no application for condonation before me and also no explanation by the applicant in this regard.
[4] I am mindful of the fact that the applicant, at that point in time, was represented by attorneys other than the attorneys currently
representing him in this court, but despite the lapse of almost three (3) years, no explanation or application for condonation has been offered to explain this delay or if it was a delay at all, or when the condonation ruling came to the attention of the applicant.
[5] To add insult to injury, the record of the proceedings also appears to have been delivered late, or rather, after it was delivered, a substantial amount of time of approximately sixteen (16) months lapsed before the record was filed and the supplementary affidavit in that regard. Once, again, this delay is not explained by the applicant. These issues were raised pertinently in the answering affidavit in the relevant paragraphs and is, despite that, not dealt with by the applicant in its replying affidavit and no explanation whatsoever, or attempt at any explanation, is offered. In the circumstances.
I make the following order:
1. The point in limine regarding the late referral of the review application is upheld.
2. The review application is dismissed.
3. There is no order as to costs.
_______________
MALAN AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE LABOUR COURT
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: JM Gouws,Johan Gouws Attorneys
For the Respondent: Adv. MJ Ramaepadi, instructed by the State Attorney