Roto v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1546/14) [2015] ZALCJHB 73 (5 March 2015)

Roto v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1546/14) [2015] ZALCJHB 73 (5 March 2015)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory and comprehensive explanation for the delay in filing both the review and condonation applications. The period of delay was material and excessive, and the applicant did not adequately account for the time taken to file the condonation application. The explanation offered was vague and unacceptable, and there was insufficient evidence that the documents relied upon were before the Commissioner when the condonation application was considered. Given the unsatisfactory explanation and the failure to explain the delay in filing the condonation application, the court held that it was unnecessary to consider the prospects of...

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 73
Parties
Applicant: Sibongile Roto; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Makhokha-Usibisi, M N.O.; Respondent: Dis-Chem Pharmacies
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2015
Case Number
JR1546/14
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Review; Review of CCMA Ruling
Outcome
Application for condonation of the late filing of the review application dismissed; review application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, Review of Arbitration Award, Prospects of Success
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing Review of Arbitration Award 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sibongile Roto

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Makhokha-Usibisi, M N.O.

Respondent

Dis-Chem Pharmacies

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Review; Review of CCMA Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the late filing of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether condonation for the late filing of the review application should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the prospects of success in the review application justify condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory and comprehensive explanation for the delay in filing both the review and condonation applications. The period of delay was material and excessive, and the applicant did not adequately account for the time taken to file the condonation application. The explanation offered was vague and unacceptable, and there was insufficient evidence that the documents relied upon were before the Commissioner when the condonation application was considered. Given the unsatisfactory explanation and the failure to explain the delay in filing the condonation application, the court held that it was unnecessary to consider the prospects of...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation of the late filing of the review application dismissed; review application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for condonation of the late filing of his review application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.