SAMWU obo Basson v Swellendam Municipality (C 156/2011) [2013] ZALCCT 33 (7 August 2013)

SAMWU obo Basson v Swellendam Municipality (C 156/2011) [2013] ZALCCT 33 (7 August 2013)

The court found that although the respondent's delay in filing its statement of response was excessive, the explanation provided, while not entirely satisfactory, demonstrated that the respondent's conduct was negligent but not intentional or grossly negligent. The respondent had intended to defend the matter and took steps to instruct its attorneys, albeit unsuccessfully due to human error. The court held that the applicants would not suffer undue prejudice if condonation was granted, as default judgment had not yet been granted and the matter could be decided on its merits after hearing oral evidence. Accordingly, condonation was granted for the late filing of both the applicants'...

Citation
[2013] ZALCCT 33
Parties
Applicant: SAMWU obo J Basson; Respondent: Swellendam Municipality
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 August 2013
Case Number
C156/2011
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Statement of Response
Outcome
Condonation granted for the late filing of both the applicants' statement of case and the respondent's statement of response. Costs awarded against the respondent in respect of its condonation application.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, Default Judgment, Unprotected Strike Action
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing Default Judgment Unprotected Strike Action

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAMWU obo J Basson

Applicant

Swellendam Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Statement of Response

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the respondent's statement of response.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for the delay is reasonable and sufficient.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's conduct amounted to intentional or gross negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the respondent's delay in filing its statement of response was excessive, the explanation provided, while not entirely satisfactory, demonstrated that the respondent's conduct was negligent but not intentional or grossly negligent. The respondent had intended to defend the matter and took steps to instruct its attorneys, albeit unsuccessfully due to human error. The court held that the applicants would not suffer undue prejudice if condonation was granted, as default judgment had not yet been granted and the matter could be decided on its merits after hearing oral evidence. Accordingly, condonation was granted for the late filing of both the applicants'...

Court Disposition

Condonation granted for the late filing of both the applicants' statement of case and the respondent's statement of response. Costs awarded against the respondent in respect of its condonation application.

Orders

  • Condonation is granted for the late filing of the applicants’ statement of case, with no order as to costs.
  • Condonation is granted for the late filing of the statement of response.