NUMSA obo Charles v DSV Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another (PR118/20) [2021] ZALCPE 11 (22 October 2021)

NUMSA obo Charles v DSV Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another (PR118/20) [2021] ZALCPE 11 (22 October 2021)

The Labour Court held that condonation applications for the late lodging of review applications should not generally be heard separately from the main review application. The substantive reason is that the prospects of success in the review are integral to the condonation inquiry, and without access to the record or the main application, the court cannot properly assess those prospects. Procedurally, hearing condonation separately encourages piecemeal litigation, which is contrary to the objectives of the Labour Relations Act and the Practice Manual. The court found that the condonation application in this matter was set down prematurely and postponed it sine die, ordering that it be...

Citation
[2021] ZALCPE 11
Parties
Applicant: NUMSA obo Fernando Charles; Respondent: DSV Solutions (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: P Heather N.O.
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 October 2021
Case Number
PR118/20
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Condonation Application for Late Lodging of Review, Heard Separately From Main Review Application
Outcome
The condonation application for late lodging of the review is postponed sine die and is to be heard together with the review application. Each party is to bear its own wasted costs occasioned by the postponement.
Judges
P N Kroon
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Lodging of Review, Unfair Dismissal, Labour Court Practice, Costs in Litigation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Lodging of Review Unfair Dismissal Labour Court Practice Costs in Litigation

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 4 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUMSA obo Fernando Charles

Applicant

DSV Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

P Heather N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Condonation Application for Late Lodging of Review, Heard Separately From Main Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is appropriate for the Labour Court to hear a condonation application for late lodging of a review separately from the main review application.
  2. 2 Whether condonation applications of this nature are interlocutory or should be brought in terms of rule 7.
  3. 3 What are the procedural and substantive consequences of hearing condonation separately from the review application.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court held that condonation applications for the late lodging of review applications should not generally be heard separately from the main review application. The substantive reason is that the prospects of success in the review are integral to the condonation inquiry, and without access to the record or the main application, the court cannot properly assess those prospects. Procedurally, hearing condonation separately encourages piecemeal litigation, which is contrary to the objectives of the Labour Relations Act and the Practice Manual. The court found that the condonation application in this matter was set down prematurely and postponed it sine die, ordering that it be...

Court Disposition

The condonation application for late lodging of the review is postponed sine die and is to be heard together with the review application. Each party is to bear its own wasted costs occasioned by the postponement.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for the late lodging of the review application is postponed sine die.
  • The application for condonation for the late lodging of the review application is to be heard together with the review application.