About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZALCJHB 242
|
|
Minister of Home Affairs v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR2290/2013) [2017] ZALCJHB 242 (15 February 2017)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Case
No: JR2290/2013
In
the matter between:
MINISTER
OF HOME AFFAIRS
Applicant
and
GENERAL
PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL
BARGAINING
COUNCIL
First
Respondent
MALUMBETE,
VULANI
N.O.
Second
Respondent
SIMPSON,
CLAUDE PETER
Third
Respondent
Heard:
15 February 2017
Date
of Judgment: 15 February 2017
EX-TEMPORE
JUDGMENT
BARNES
AJ
[1]
This is an application for condonation for
the late filing of the applicant’s review application. The
review application was
in terms of the rules required to be filed on
or before the 31st of January 2012. It was only filed on the 24th of
October 2014.
It is therefore approximately 21 months late. This is
self-evidently a long delay.
[2]
The applicant’s explanation for its
delay is set out in its answering affidavit at paginated page 12
thereof. The explanation
is set out in a full paragraphs. It is to
the effect that upon receipt of the award it had to be perused and
consideration had
to be given to whether review proceedings ought to
be brought or not. Thereafter the officer of the State Attorney was
instructed,
thereafter counsel was briefed, and thereafter the review
application was transmitted to the deponent to the founding affidavit
who is the Deputy Director Labour Relations in the Department of Home
Affairs. He had to consider the application, make comments
and return
it to the office of the State Attorney.
[3]
The deponent states that the affidavit in
support of the application was then transmitted back to him for his
signature. The following
submission is then made in the answering
affidavit:
“
In
the circumstances I submit that the delay was occasioned by
logistical matters in view of the fact that our offices are in
Pretoria
whereas the office of the State Attorney is in Johannesburg
and counsel is also based in Johannesburg.”
[4]
It then goes on to say,
“
It
was therefore a logistical problem to convene consultations when
people are disbursed.”
[5]
That is the full extent of the delay, of
the explanation for the delay. It is, in my view itself evidently
falls dramatically short
of the standard that is required for an
explanation for delay particularly for such a long period, 21 months
in this case.
[6]
In my view this cannot conceivably
constitute a reasonable or acceptable explanation for the delay.
There being no reasonable or
acceptable explanation before this court
for the delay it is not necessary for the court to have regard to the
applicant’s
prospects of success in considering the application
for condonation. See in this regard
Melanie
v Santam Insurance Company Ltd 1962(4) SA 531
Appellant Division.
[7]
For these reasons the applicant’s application for condonation
for the late filing of its review application is dismissed
with
costs.
__________________________
Heidi
Barnes
Acting
Judge of the Labour Court