Mokoena v Old Mutual Life Assurance Company (JS 123/2016) [2019] ZALCJHB 54 (19 March 2019)

Mokoena v Old Mutual Life Assurance Company (JS 123/2016) [2019] ZALCJHB 54 (19 March 2019)

The court held that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting the filing of a further affidavit in support of her condonation application. The application was made after pleadings had closed and without a satisfactory explanation for the delay or for the absence of supporting documents in the founding affidavit. The applicant was legally represented when the founding affidavit was drafted and should have provided all relevant information at that stage. The respondent's challenge to the adequacy of the reasons for delay did not constitute a new matter or unexpected development justifying supplementation. The court found that the applicant was merely attempting...

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 54
Parties
Applicant: Mary Mokoena; Respondent: Old Mutual Life Assurance Company
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2019
Case Number
JS 123/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to File Supplementary Affidavit in Condonation Proceedings
Outcome
Application for leave to deliver a further affidavit in support of condonation refused.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Condonation, Supplementary Affidavit, Exceptional Circumstances, Motion Proceedings
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Supplementary Affidavit Exceptional Circumstances Motion Proceedings

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

Parties

Mary Mokoena

Applicant

Old Mutual Life Assurance Company

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to File Supplementary Affidavit in Condonation Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to file a further affidavit in support of her condonation application.
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify the filing of a supplementary affidavit after pleadings have closed.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice and fairness require the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting the filing of a further affidavit in support of her condonation application. The application was made after pleadings had closed and without a satisfactory explanation for the delay or for the absence of supporting documents in the founding affidavit. The applicant was legally represented when the founding affidavit was drafted and should have provided all relevant information at that stage. The respondent's challenge to the adequacy of the reasons for delay did not constitute a new matter or unexpected development justifying supplementation. The court found that the applicant was merely attempting...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to deliver a further affidavit in support of condonation refused.

Orders

  • The application for leave to deliver a further affidavit in support of the application for condonation under the present case number is refused.
  • The Registrar of the Court is directed to set the matter down for the determination of the applicant’s application for condonation for the late filing of her statement of claim.