Slabbert v Motor Industry Bargaining Council and Others (PR11/17) [2018] ZALCPE 1 (16 January 2018)

Slabbert v Motor Industry Bargaining Council and Others (PR11/17) [2018] ZALCPE 1 (16 January 2018)

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the 77-day delay in filing the review application was highly improbable and did not cover the entire period of delay. The applicant's evidence was inconsistent and failed to provide a reasonable justification for her inaction. The court held that large portions of the delay remained unexplained and that the explanation offered amounted to no explanation at all. Applying the principles from Van Wyk and NUM v Council for Mineral Technology, the court concluded that without a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, the prospects of success are immaterial. The interests of justice did not require condonation to be granted....

Citation
[2018] ZALCPE 1
Parties
Applicant: Adriana Christa Slabbert; Respondent: Motor Industry Bargaining Council; Respondent: Commissioner Botha du Plessis; Respondent: BMW Continental Cars
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 January 2018
Case Number
PR 11/17
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review
Outcome
Application for condonation is refused and the review application is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Potgieter
Legal Topics
Condonation, Review of Arbitration Award, Late Filing, Interest of Justice
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Review of Arbitration Award Late Filing Interest of Justice

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adriana Christa Slabbert

Applicant

Motor Industry Bargaining Council

Respondent

Commissioner Botha du Plessis

Respondent

BMW Continental Cars

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for condonation of the late filing of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation for the delay is reasonable and covers the entire period.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require condonation to be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's explanation for the 77-day delay in filing the review application was highly improbable and did not cover the entire period of delay. The applicant's evidence was inconsistent and failed to provide a reasonable justification for her inaction. The court held that large portions of the delay remained unexplained and that the explanation offered amounted to no explanation at all. Applying the principles from Van Wyk and NUM v Council for Mineral Technology, the court concluded that without a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, the prospects of success are immaterial. The interests of justice did not require condonation to be granted....

Court Disposition

Application for condonation is refused and the review application is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Condonation is not granted.
  • The applicant’s application is dismissed with costs.