NEHAWU obo Mdlulwa v Airport Company South Africa (JS156/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 94 (9 February 2018)

NEHAWU obo Mdlulwa v Airport Company South Africa (JS156/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 94 (9 February 2018)

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the late referral was inadequate, with several periods unaccounted for and no satisfactory reasons provided. The applicant's case was based on speculative allegations that did not amount to unfair discrimination, and she failed to discharge the evidentiary burden. The prospects of success were found to be non-existent. Granting condonation in these circumstances would not serve the interests of justice and would unnecessarily burden the respondent with defending an unmeritorious claim. Accordingly, condonation was refused and costs awarded against the applicant.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 94
Parties
Applicant: NEHAWU obo Nomazizi Mdlulwa; Respondent: Airport Company South Africa
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 February 2018
Case Number
JS156/16
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Referral
Outcome
Condonation application refused with costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
GN Moshoana
Legal Topics
Condonation, Unfair Discrimination, Burden of Explanation, Prospects of Success
Labour Law Condonation Unfair Discrimination Burden of Explanation Prospects of Success

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NEHAWU obo Nomazizi Mdlulwa

Applicant

Airport Company South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Referral

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided an adequate explanation for the late referral of the statement of case.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has prospects of success in the main dispute of alleged discrimination.
  3. 3 Whether it is in the interest of justice to grant condonation in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the late referral was inadequate, with several periods unaccounted for and no satisfactory reasons provided. The applicant's case was based on speculative allegations that did not amount to unfair discrimination, and she failed to discharge the evidentiary burden. The prospects of success were found to be non-existent. Granting condonation in these circumstances would not serve the interests of justice and would unnecessarily burden the respondent with defending an unmeritorious claim. Accordingly, condonation was refused and costs awarded against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Condonation application refused with costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The condonation application is hereby refused.
  • The applicant to bear the costs of the application.