NEHAWU obo Mothoa v Construction Education and Training Authority (JS669/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 270 (10 September 2019)

NEHAWU obo Mothoa v Construction Education and Training Authority (JS669/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 270 (10 September 2019)

The court found that the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal was not excessive and the reason for the delay was acceptable. However, the referral of the dispute was made 477 days late, which constituted an inordinate delay. The explanation for the original delay was unacceptable, and the prospects of success were insufficient to outweigh the excessive delay and poor explanation. The present application for leave to appeal added nothing new to the facts already considered. The court exercised its discretion to refuse condonation, emphasizing the interests of finality and expeditious dispute resolution, especially given that the applicant was dismissed more than five and a...

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 270
Parties
Applicant: NEHAWU obo LJ Mothoa; Respondent: Construction Education and Training Authority
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 September 2019
Case Number
JS669/17
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation
Outcome
Application for condonation and leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Referral, Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospects of Success
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Referral Leave to Appeal Reasonable 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NEHAWU obo LJ Mothoa

Applicant

Construction Education and Training Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success in the main application.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require condonation to be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal was not excessive and the reason for the delay was acceptable. However, the referral of the dispute was made 477 days late, which constituted an inordinate delay. The explanation for the original delay was unacceptable, and the prospects of success were insufficient to outweigh the excessive delay and poor explanation. The present application for leave to appeal added nothing new to the facts already considered. The court exercised its discretion to refuse condonation, emphasizing the interests of finality and expeditious dispute resolution, especially given that the applicant was dismissed more than five and a...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.