Stilhoek Boerderey (Pty) Ltd v Botha and Others (JR 1785/19) [2023] ZALCJHB 34 (1 March 2023)

Stilhoek Boerderey (Pty) Ltd v Botha and Others (JR 1785/19) [2023] ZALCJHB 34 (1 March 2023)

The applicant failed to provide a plausible and comprehensive explanation for the delay in launching the reinstatement application. The founding affidavit did not acknowledge when the review application was deemed withdrawn or lapsed, nor did it explain the two-year delay after being alerted to the status of the application. The applicant's conduct was found to be inappropriate and lacking diligence, and the review application was considered hopeless with no prospects of success. The court held that it is not in the interests of justice to reinstate the application. The section 158(1)(c) application was unopposed and granted, making the arbitration award an order of court. Costs were...

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 34
Parties
Applicant: Stilhoek Boerderey (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Frederick Jacobus Botha; Respondent: Commissioner N Sono N. O; Respondent: The CCMA
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 March 2023
Case Number
JR 1785/19
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Reinstate Deemed Withdrawn and Lapsed Review; Section 158(1)(c) Application
Outcome
Application to reinstate the review is dismissed; section 158(1)(c) application granted; costs awarded against applicant for reinstatement application.
Judges
GN Moshoana
Legal Topics
Condonation, Practice Manual Non Compliance, Section 158 1 C Application, Costs Award, Review Application Lapsed
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Practice Manual Non Compliance Section 158 1 C Application Costs Award Review Application Lapsed

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stilhoek Boerderey (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Frederick Jacobus Botha

Respondent

Commissioner N Sono N. O

Respondent

The CCMA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Reinstate Deemed Withdrawn and Lapsed Review; Section 158(1)(c) Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a plausible explanation for the delay in launching the reinstatement application.
  2. 2 Whether the review application should be reinstated despite being deemed withdrawn and lapsed.
  3. 3 Whether the section 158(1)(c) application should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a plausible and comprehensive explanation for the delay in launching the reinstatement application. The founding affidavit did not acknowledge when the review application was deemed withdrawn or lapsed, nor did it explain the two-year delay after being alerted to the status of the application. The applicant's conduct was found to be inappropriate and lacking diligence, and the review application was considered hopeless with no prospects of success. The court held that it is not in the interests of justice to reinstate the application. The section 158(1)(c) application was unopposed and granted, making the arbitration award an order of court. Costs were...

Court Disposition

Application to reinstate the review is dismissed; section 158(1)(c) application granted; costs awarded against applicant for reinstatement application.

Orders

  • The application to reinstate the deemed withdrawn and lapsed review application is dismissed.
  • The arbitration award issued by the CCMA under case number LP9515-18 on 6 August is made an order of this Court in terms of section 158(1)(c) of the LRA with no order as to costs.