NEHAWU obo Mahole v South African Revenue Services and Others (JR 2308/2018) [2022] ZALCJHB 198 (29 July 2022)

NEHAWU obo Mahole v South African Revenue Services and Others (JR 2308/2018) [2022] ZALCJHB 198 (29 July 2022)

The court found that the delay of 110 days in filing the review application was excessive and not satisfactorily explained. The applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, and the involvement of the union did not excuse the failure to comply with the statutory time limits. The court held that, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, it was unnecessary to consider the applicant's prospects of success. Even if considered, the applicant did not meet the threshold for review on a prima facie basis. Accordingly, condonation was refused and the review application dismissed.

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 198
Parties
Applicant: NEHAWU obo Mahole SMJ; Respondent: South African Revenue Services; Respondent: Donald Kgalane Nkadimeng; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 July 2022
Case Number
JR 2308/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Condonation for the late filing of the review application is refused. The review application is dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Condonation, Review of Arbitration Award, Late Filing, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Review of Arbitration Award Late Filing Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness

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

NEHAWU obo Mahole SMJ

Applicant

South African Revenue Services

Respondent

Donald Kgalane Nkadimeng

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Condonation and Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's prospects of success in the review justify condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay of 110 days in filing the review application was excessive and not satisfactorily explained. The applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay, and the involvement of the union did not excuse the failure to comply with the statutory time limits. The court held that, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, it was unnecessary to consider the applicant's prospects of success. Even if considered, the applicant did not meet the threshold for review on a prima facie basis. Accordingly, condonation was refused and the review application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Condonation for the late filing of the review application is refused. The review application is dismissed.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the review application is refused.
  • The review application is dismissed.