Securicor (Pty) Ltd v Ngwane and Others (D678/09) [2010] ZALCD 20 (25 March 2010)

Securicor (Pty) Ltd v Ngwane and Others (D678/09) [2010] ZALCD 20 (25 March 2010)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the 13-month delay in filing the review application. The explanations offered were either not supported by the facts or amounted to no explanation at all. The applicant did not address the specific delays, particularly the ten-week period after the contempt application was adjourned. Citing authoritative case law, the court held that in the absence of a reasonable explanation for the delay, it is unnecessary to consider the prospects of success. The application for condonation was therefore dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2010] ZALCD 20
Parties
Applicant: Securicor (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commissioner J Ngwane; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Rajendran Pillay
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 March 2010
Case Number
D678/09
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Condonation Application for Late Filing of Review
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed with costs.
Judges
Gush
Legal Topics
Condonation, Review of Arbitration Award, Unfair Dismissal, Delay in Filing, Prospects of Success
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Review of Arbitration Award Unfair Dismissal Delay in Filing 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Securicor (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commissioner J Ngwane

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

Rajendran Pillay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Condonation Application for Late Filing of Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided a reasonable explanation for the 13-month delay in filing the review application.
  2. 2 Whether condonation should be granted in the absence of a reasonable explanation for the delay.
  3. 3 Whether the prospects of success are relevant when no reasonable explanation for delay is provided.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the 13-month delay in filing the review application. The explanations offered were either not supported by the facts or amounted to no explanation at all. The applicant did not address the specific delays, particularly the ten-week period after the contempt application was adjourned. Citing authoritative case law, the court held that in the absence of a reasonable explanation for the delay, it is unnecessary to consider the prospects of success. The application for condonation was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed with costs.