Ragophala v Commissioner For Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (JR663/2019) [2024] ZALCJHB 30 (1 February 2024)

Ragophala v Commissioner For Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (JR663/2019) [2024] ZALCJHB 30 (1 February 2024)

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable and detailed explanation for the delay in filing the review application. The explanation lacked specific dates and did not account for the entire period of delay. The applicant did not fully disclose the facts to the court and only addressed prospects of success in the heads of argument, not in the founding affidavit. The court found that without a satisfactory explanation for the delay, consideration of prospects of success is unnecessary. The points in limine raised by the third respondent were dismissed as lacking merit. The condonation application was refused, and the review application was struck from the roll. No order as to costs was...

Citation
[2024] ZALCJHB 30
Parties
Applicant: Abraham Ragophala; Respondent: Commissioner for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner Lungisani Amos Sithole; Respondent: WRAPSA
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 February 2024
Case Number
JR663/2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Condonation and Review
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the review application is refused. The review application is struck from the roll. No order as to costs.
Judges
M B Mahalelo
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Filing, Review of Arbitration Award, Unfair Dismissal, Practice Manual Compliance
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation for Late Filing Review of Arbitration Award Unfair Dismissal Practice Manual Compliance

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abraham Ragophala

Applicant

Commissioner for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner Lungisani Amos Sithole

Respondent

WRAPSA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Condonation and Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's review application was filed late and if condonation should be granted for the delay.
  2. 2 Whether the points in limine raised by the third respondent (lis pendens and deemed withdrawal) have merit.
  3. 3 Whether the review application should be struck from the roll due to procedural non-compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable and detailed explanation for the delay in filing the review application. The explanation lacked specific dates and did not account for the entire period of delay. The applicant did not fully disclose the facts to the court and only addressed prospects of success in the heads of argument, not in the founding affidavit. The court found that without a satisfactory explanation for the delay, consideration of prospects of success is unnecessary. The points in limine raised by the third respondent were dismissed as lacking merit. The condonation application was refused, and the review application was struck from the roll. No order as to costs was...

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the review application is refused. The review application is struck from the roll. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The points in limine are dismissed.
  • The condonation application for the late filing of the review is dismissed with no order as to costs.