Moloto v Department of Infrastructure Development and Others (JR 1825/2018) [2023] ZALCJHB 91; (2023) 44 ILJ 1765 (LC) (21 April 2023)

Moloto v Department of Infrastructure Development and Others (JR 1825/2018) [2023] ZALCJHB 91; (2023) 44 ILJ 1765 (LC) (21 April 2023)

The court found that the Department of Infrastructure Development failed to prosecute its review application with the required diligence and provided no explanation for lengthy periods of inactivity. The department's reliance solely on prospects of success was insufficient to justify its dilatory conduct, especially...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 91
Parties
Applicant: Moloto, Noko Albert; Respondent: Department of Infrastructure Development; Respondent: General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council; Respondent: Ngako P M, N.O.
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 April 2023
Case Number
JR 1825/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Rule 11 Application to Dismiss Review for Delay
Outcome
Dismissal application dismissed; punitive costs order against the department; judgment referred to Auditor General.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Rule 11 Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Delay in Prosecution, Condonation, Costs Orders
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rule 11 Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Delay in Prosecution Condonation Costs Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moloto, Noko Albert

Applicant

Department of Infrastructure Development

Respondent

General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council

Respondent

Ngako P M, N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Rule 11 Application to Dismiss Review for Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the review application should be dismissed under Rule 11 due to the department's delay in prosecuting the matter.
  2. 2 Whether the department provided adequate explanation for the lengthy delays in advancing the review application.
  3. 3 Whether the unopposed status of the review application excuses the department's dilatory conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Department of Infrastructure Development failed to prosecute its review application with the required diligence and provided no explanation for lengthy periods of inactivity. The department's reliance solely on prospects of success was insufficient to justify its dilatory conduct, especially in the absence of any request for condonation or reinstatement. The court held that the mere fact that the review application was unopposed did not excuse the department's failure to advance the matter, as this left the status of the arbitration award and the applicant's employment in limbo. While the department's conduct was strongly deprecated, the court determined that the...

Court Disposition

Dismissal application dismissed; punitive costs order against the department; judgment referred to Auditor General.

Orders

  • The dismissal application is dismissed.
  • The First Respondent in the dismissal application must pay the Applicant’s costs of the dismissal proceedings on an attorney own client scale.