Mphela v Commission for Conciliation and Arbitration and Another (JR 521/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 213 (1 September 2020)

Mphela v Commission for Conciliation and Arbitration and Another (JR 521/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 213 (1 September 2020)

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.

Citation
[2020] ZALCJHB 213
Parties
Applicant: Sarah S Mphela; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation and Arbitration; Respondent: Foodlovers Market
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 September 2020
Case Number
JR 521/20
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Condonation Refusal
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
F Coetzee
Legal Topics
Condonation Application, Late Referral, Unfair Dismissal, Review of Ccma Ruling
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Application Late Referral Unfair Dismissal Review of Ccma Ruling

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sarah S Mphela

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation and Arbitration

Respondent

Foodlovers Market

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Condonation Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner’s refusal to grant condonation for the late referral of the unfair dismissal dispute was reasonable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided sufficient explanation for the delay in referral.

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.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.