Nxelane and Others v Chep SA (Pty) Ltd and Others (P35/2023) [2025] ZALCPE 12 (23 July 2025)

Nxelane and Others v Chep SA (Pty) Ltd and Others (P35/2023) [2025] ZALCPE 12 (23 July 2025)

The court found that the applicants' condonation application was inadequately prepared and failed to address the prospects of success regarding their dismissals for participation in an unprotected strike. The applicants' attorneys failed to review the pleadings upon inheriting the matter and only sought advice from senior counsel at the last minute. Despite the unsatisfactory conduct, the court held that refusing the postponement would severely prejudice the applicants and deny them a fair opportunity to supplement their case. The interests of justice required that the applicants be allowed to file supplementary papers. However, the respondents were put to unnecessary expense and...

Citation
[2025] ZALCPE 12
Parties
Applicant: Mnyamezeli Nxelane and 70 Others; Respondent: Chep South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Contracta-Force Corporate Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 July 2025
Case Number
P35/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Postponement in Condonation Proceedings
Outcome
Application for postponement granted; costs awarded against applicants' union on attorney-and-client scale.
Judges
C de Kock
Legal Topics
Condonation, Postponement, Unprotected Strike, Attorney and Client Costs
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Postponement Unprotected Strike Attorney and Client Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mnyamezeli Nxelane and 70 Others

Applicant

Chep South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Contracta-Force Corporate Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Postponement in Condonation Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for postponement to supplement the condonation application should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded on an attorney-and-client scale due to the applicants' late application for postponement.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' prospects of success in the condonation application are adequately addressed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' condonation application was inadequately prepared and failed to address the prospects of success regarding their dismissals for participation in an unprotected strike. The applicants' attorneys failed to review the pleadings upon inheriting the matter and only sought advice from senior counsel at the last minute. Despite the unsatisfactory conduct, the court held that refusing the postponement would severely prejudice the applicants and deny them a fair opportunity to supplement their case. The interests of justice required that the applicants be allowed to file supplementary papers. However, the respondents were put to unnecessary expense and...

Court Disposition

Application for postponement granted; costs awarded against applicants' union on attorney-and-client scale.

Orders

  • The application for postponement is granted.
  • The applicants' union is ordered to pay the respondents' costs in respect of the postponement on an attorney-and-client scale, including the costs of counsel.