About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZALCJHB 270
|
|
NEHAWU obo Mothoa v Construction Education and Training Authority (JS669/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 270 (10 September 2019)
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not reportable
CASE
NO: JS 669/17
In the matter between
NEHAWU
obo LJ MOTHOA
Applicant
and
CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION AND TRAINING
AUTHORITY
Respondent
Judgment:
10 September 2019
JUDGMENT
VAN
NIEKERK J
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal against the whole of the
judgment delivered
by this court on 7 May 2019, when the court
dismissed an application to condone the late referral of a dispute.
The present application
was itself filed late, and the applicant
seeks condonation.
[2]
The application for leave to appeal ought to have been filed on 21
May 2019. It was
filed on 24 May 2019. The delay is not excessive,
and the reason for the delay is acceptable. In terms of the matrix of
factors
to be applied, the applicant must satisfy the court that she
has reasonable prospects of success in the main application. The
relevant
facts are recorded in the judgment, and I do not intend to
repeat them here. The referral was made 477 days late, an inordinate
delay. The explanation for the delay was found to be
unacceptable, and the prospects of success were found to be such that
they did not outweigh the excessive delay and unacceptable
explanation for it.
[3]
The present application adds nothing to the mix. It should be
recalled that when it
considers an application for condonation, the
court exercises a discretion. An appeal court will rarely interfere
with the exercise
of a discretion, and ordinarily does so only if the
decision is arbitrary or irrational. In the present case, the
interests of
finality were found to prevail, so were the interests of
expeditous dispute resolution. As I pointed out in the judgment, the
applicant
was dismissed more than five and a half years ago.
[4]
In short, the applicant has failed to establish that her prospects of
success are
such that the late filing of the application for leave to
appeal should be condoned. Further, the interests of justice dictate
that the condonation be refused.
I make the following order:
1.
Condonation for the late filing of the
application for leave to appeal is refused.
2.
The application for leave to appeal is
dismissed.
André van Niekerk
Judge