Zwane v Samson NO and Others (JR393/16) [2019] ZALCJHB 200 (13 August 2019)

Zwane v Samson NO and Others (JR393/16) [2019] ZALCJHB 200 (13 August 2019)

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable and bona fide explanation for the excessive delays in prosecuting the review application. The explanation offered was vague and did not account for the late filing of the record or the supplementary founding affidavit. The Practice Manual's deeming provisions operate automatically and do not require any active step from the respondent. The applicant was under an obligation to apply for condonation promptly upon becoming aware of the defaults but failed to do so and provided no explanation for this further delay. In light of these findings, the review application is deemed to have lapsed and there is no requirement to consider prospects of...

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 200
Parties
Applicant: Linda Prince Zwane; Respondent: Mohini Samson, N.O.; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: South African Breweries Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 August 2019
Case Number
JR393/16
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Reinstatement of Lapsed Review
Outcome
Application to reinstate the review application is dismissed. The review application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Whitcher
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Filing, Practice Manual Compliance, Review Application Lapse, Disciplinary Hearing Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation for Late Filing Practice Manual Compliance Review Application Lapse Disciplinary Hearing 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linda Prince Zwane

Applicant

Mohini Samson, N.O.

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

South African Breweries Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Reinstatement of Lapsed Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable and bona fide explanation for excessive delays in prosecuting the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the review application should be reinstated despite non-compliance with the Practice Manual timelines.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner committed any reviewable irregularity in the arbitration award, particularly regarding the fairness of the disciplinary hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable and bona fide explanation for the excessive delays in prosecuting the review application. The explanation offered was vague and did not account for the late filing of the record or the supplementary founding affidavit. The Practice Manual's deeming provisions operate automatically and do not require any active step from the respondent. The applicant was under an obligation to apply for condonation promptly upon becoming aware of the defaults but failed to do so and provided no explanation for this further delay. In light of these findings, the review application is deemed to have lapsed and there is no requirement to consider prospects of...

Court Disposition

Application to reinstate the review application is dismissed. The review application is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application to reinstate the review application is dismissed.
  • The review application is dismissed.