Shongwe v Transnet Engineering (JR397/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 20 (15 January 2018)

Shongwe v Transnet Engineering (JR397/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 20 (15 January 2018)

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the nearly ten-month delay in filing the review application was wholly inadequate, unsubstantiated, and in parts fabricated. The applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, as required by law. The court emphasized that in review proceedings, condonation is not granted as a matter of course and that the absence of a proper explanation for the delay is fatal to the application. The lengthy and unexplained delay trumped all other considerations, including prospects of success and prejudice. Accordingly, condonation was refused, and the review application was dismissed.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 20
Parties
Applicant: ME Shongwe; Respondent: Transnet Engineering
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 January 2018
Case Number
JR397/16
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review
Outcome
Condonation application dismissed; review application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
S Snyman
Legal Topics
Condonation, Review of Arbitration Award, Unfair Dismissal, Misconduct, Lateness of Application
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Review of Arbitration Award Unfair Dismissal Misconduct Lateness of Application

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ME Shongwe

Applicant

Transnet Engineering

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the late filing of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the review application.
  3. 3 Whether the review application should be entertained in light of the excessive delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the nearly ten-month delay in filing the review application was wholly inadequate, unsubstantiated, and in parts fabricated. The applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, as required by law. The court emphasized that in review proceedings, condonation is not granted as a matter of course and that the absence of a proper explanation for the delay is fatal to the application. The lengthy and unexplained delay trumped all other considerations, including prospects of success and prejudice. Accordingly, condonation was refused, and the review application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Condonation application dismissed; review application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicant’s condonation application is dismissed.
  • The applicant’s review application is dismissed.