Rabothata v Others v MEIBC and Others (JA40/2010) [2015] ZALAC 19 (3 June 2015)

Rabothata v Others v MEIBC and Others (JA40/2010) [2015] ZALAC 19 (3 June 2015)

The court found that the appellants failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the excessive delay in prosecuting the appeal. The attempt to mislead the court by obtaining a second case number and presenting the appeal as a 2012 matter, when it was in fact a 2010 appeal, constituted a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] ZALAC 19
Parties
Appellant: Samuel Rabothata & Others; Respondent: MEIBC; Respondent: J M Gaylard, NO; Respondent: Intercables (Pty) Limited
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 June 2015
Case Number
JA40/2010
Procedural Posture
Reinstatement Application / Application for Reinstatement of Appeal and Condonation for Late Filing
Outcome
Application for reinstatement of appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Waglay, Landman, Mngqibisa-Thusi
Legal Topics
Condonation, Reinstatement of Appeal, Misrepresentation, Unfair Dismissal, Union Representation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Reinstatement of Appeal Misrepresentation Unfair Dismissal Union Representation

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Rabothata & Others

Appellant

MEIBC

Respondent

J M Gaylard, NO

Respondent

Intercables (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Reinstatement Application / Application for Reinstatement of Appeal and Condonation for Late Filing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants provided an acceptable explanation for the excessive delay in prosecuting the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the misrepresentation regarding the case number and appeal date should result in dismissal of the application.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants are entitled to reinstatement of the appeal and condonation for late filing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the excessive delay in prosecuting the appeal. The attempt to mislead the court by obtaining a second case number and presenting the appeal as a 2012 matter, when it was in fact a 2010 appeal, constituted a misrepresentation that undermined their case. The appellants did not take the court into their confidence or disclose relevant information regarding the delays and actions taken. The time lapses were excessive, and the disregard for the rules of the court was clear. In light of the misrepresentation and lack of explanation, the application for reinstatement and condonation was dismissed...

Court Disposition

Application for reinstatement of appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.