Moloto v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2755/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 180 (14 February 2017)

Moloto v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2755/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 180 (14 February 2017)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the excessive delay in filing the review application. The applicant, as a shop steward, was reasonably expected to know the applicable time limits and to follow up on instructions given to union officials. No evidence was presented to support the claim that the delay was solely due to the union official, and no confirmatory affidavits were filed. The explanation was deemed unsatisfactory, and as a result, the applicant's prospects of success were irrelevant. The statutory imperative for expeditious resolution of labour disputes and the need for strict scrutiny of condonation applications justified the...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 180
Parties
Applicant: Matlou Saul Moloto; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration; Respondent: Trevor Wilkes N.O.; Respondent: Rand Water
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 February 2017
Case Number
JR2755/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Condonation for Late Filing of Review Application
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the review application is refused and the review application is dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Condonation, Review of Arbitration Award, Late Filing, Practice Manual, Statutory Time Limits
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Review of Arbitration Award Late Filing Practice Manual Statutory Time Limits

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matlou Saul Moloto

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration

Respondent

Trevor Wilkes N.O.

Respondent

Rand Water

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Condonation for Late Filing of Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's prospects of success are relevant given the explanation for delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the excessive delay in filing the review application. The applicant, as a shop steward, was reasonably expected to know the applicable time limits and to follow up on instructions given to union officials. No evidence was presented to support the claim that the delay was solely due to the union official, and no confirmatory affidavits were filed. The explanation was deemed unsatisfactory, and as a result, the applicant's prospects of success were irrelevant. The statutory imperative for expeditious resolution of labour disputes and the need for strict scrutiny of condonation applications justified the...

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the review application is refused and the review application is dismissed.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the review application is refused.
  • The review application is dismissed.