Mphela v Commission for Conciliation and Arbitration and Another (JR 521/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 213 (1 September 2020)
- Citation
- [2020] ZALCJHB 213
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- F Coetzee
- Case number
- JR 521/20
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- F Coetzee
- Case number
- JR 521/20
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court found that the Commissioner’s refusal to grant condonation for the late referral was reasonable. The delay of 269 days was excessive, and the applicant’s explanation, namely illness and absence from Middleburg, was not sufficient to account for the entire period of delay. Although there were reasonable prospects of success, the failure to adequately explain the delay justified the refusal of condonation. The review application was therefore dismissed.
Court disposition
Application dismissed.
Orders
- The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Sarah S Mphela
ApplicantCommission for Conciliation and Arbitration
RespondentFoodlovers Market
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Condonation Refusal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Commissioner’s refusal to grant condonation for the late referral of the unfair dismissal dispute was reasonable.
- 02
Whether the applicant provided sufficient explanation for the delay in referral.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the delay in referring the unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA was due to her illness and the need to be cared for at home, which prevented her from being in Middleburg and pursuing the matter timeously.
- Respondent
- The application was unopposed; no arguments were advanced by the respondents.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and Others 2008 (2) SA 24 (CC)
A Commissioner must consider the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, prospects of success, and prejudice when deciding condonation applications.
- 02
Herbstein & Van Winsen: The Civil Practice of the High Courts and the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
A ruling refusing condonation will only be set aside if it is one that no reasonable Commissioner could have made.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court found that the Commissioner’s refusal to grant condonation for the late referral was reasonable. The delay of 269 days was excessive, and the applicant’s explanation, namely illness and absence from Middleburg, was not sufficient to account for the entire period of delay. Although there were reasonable prospects of success, the failure to adequately explain the delay justified the refusal of condonation. The review application was therefore dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The application was unopposed, and no order as to costs was made.
Court disposition
Application dismissed.
- The application is dismissed with 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: JR 521/20
In the matter between:
SARAH
S
MPHELA
Applicant
and
COMMISSION
FOR CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION First Respondent
FOODLOVERS
MARKET Second Respondent
Heard: 18 August 2020
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email. The date hand-down is deemed to be 01 September 2020.
Summary: Review
JUDGMENT
COETZEE AJ
[1] The applicant approaches this Court to review and set aside a ruling dismissing an application for commendation for the late referral of an alleged unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA.
[2] The application is unopposed.
[3] The Commissioner made the following ruling:
"1. The model 7.11 referral is 269 days late, which in my view is excessive.
2. The applicant failed to account for the delay in that the reasons proffered, in my view, or unreasonable.
3. Although the application as reasonable prospects of success, the delay and failure to account does not compensate granting of condonation.
4. Condonation application is refused. CCMA to close the file."
[4] The applicant furnished the following explanation for the delay:
"The applicant was not around Middleburg due to sickness since someone has to take care for her, she has to go home for someone to look after her, she was in MO STO RUG"
[5] The ruling of the Commissioner is one that a reasonable Commissioner could have made.
[6] The application stands to fail.
[7] I make the following order:
1. The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
__
F. Coetzee
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
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.