POPCRU obo Ntoa v SSSBC and Others (JR1815/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 375 (15 August 2017)

POPCRU obo Ntoa v SSSBC and Others (JR1815/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 375 (15 August 2017)

The court found that the delay of more than three years in filing the review application was excessive and not adequately explained. The applicant's explanation, based on internal union disarray and miscommunication, was vague and unsupported by evidence or confirmatory affidavits. The court held that, in line with established principles, without a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, the prospects of success are immaterial. Even if considered, the prospects of success were doubtful, as the arbitrator had acted within the bounds of the law and procedure. The application for condonation was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 375
Parties
Applicant: POPCRU obo Moeketsi A Ntoa; Respondent: SSSBC; Respondent: M C van Aarde N.O.; Respondent: SAPS
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 August 2017
Case Number
JR1815/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Review
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, Review of Arbitration Award, Explanation for Delay, Prospects of Success
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing Review of Arbitration Award Explanation for Delay 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

POPCRU obo Moeketsi A Ntoa

Applicant

SSSBC

Respondent

M C van Aarde N.O.

Respondent

SAPS

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the excessive delay in filing the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the prospects of success on review are material in the absence of a reasonable explanation for the delay.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the applicant's representatives excuses the delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay of more than three years in filing the review application was excessive and not adequately explained. The applicant's explanation, based on internal union disarray and miscommunication, was vague and unsupported by evidence or confirmatory affidavits. The court held that, in line with established principles, without a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, the prospects of success are immaterial. Even if considered, the prospects of success were doubtful, as the arbitrator had acted within the bounds of the law and procedure. The application for condonation was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for the late filing of the review application is dismissed.