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 336
|
|
Moabelo and Others v Christal Clean Hygiene and Cleaning Services (Pty) Ltd (JR1004/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 336 (18 October 2019)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OFSOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not
Reportable
case
no:
JR
1004/17
In
the matter between:
ROSINA
MOABELO & OTHERS
Applicants
and
CHRISTAL CLEAN HYGIENE
AND
CLEANING
SERVICE (PTY) LTD
Respondent
Considered:
In Chambers
Delivered
:
18 October 2019
JUDGEMENT: APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
NTSHEBE,
AJ
Introduction
[1]
The applicants apply for leave to appeal against the whole of the
judgement
delivered on 22 May 2019 wherein their condonation
application in respect of the late filing of the review application,
which is
more than two years out of time, was dismissed.
[2]
Amongst the grounds in the application for leave to appeal, it is
submitted
that the period is not excessive and that the explanation
is understandable and acceptable.
[3]
The test on
whether to grant leave to appeal is whether there are reasonable
prospects that another court would come to a different
conclusion to
that of the court
a
quo
.
[1]
[4]
Having considered my judgement and the written submissions of both
parties
in the application for leave to appeal, I am not persuaded
that there exists a likelihood that, based on the same facts, another
court would come to a different conclusion. The applicant’s
explanation in the condonation application falls short of the
test.
The delay was long and the explanation was not reasonable.
[5]
In the case
of
Government
Pensions Administration Agency v General Public Service Sectoral
Bargaining Council and Others
[2]
the court per Tlhotlhalemaje, J in restating the principles
applicable in condonation applications stated as follows:
“
In this case,
there is no doubt that the delay by Kekana in referring her dispute
to the GPSSBC was excessive in the extreme. She
therefore had a
greater burden to set out all the facts and circumstances relating to
the delay, and most importantly, to provide
a satisfactory
explanation for each period of the delay. Any period of delay that
was unaccounted for would ordinarily result in
condonation being
refused.”
[6]
Therefore, there was a greater burden on the applicants to set out
all
the facts and circumstances relating to the delay, and most
importantly, to provide a satisfactory explanation for each period of
the delay. In this, they failed.
[7]
In conclusion, the applicants have not shown reasonable prospects
that
another Court would come to a different conclusion and therefore
have no prospects of success on appeal.
[8]
In the premise, the following order is made:
Order
1. The applicants’
application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2. There is no order as
to costs
________________________
T. Ntshebe
Acting
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
[1]
Glencore
Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd v NUM obo Maripane and Others
[2017] ZALCHB 147 (11 May 2017).
[2]
(JR797/17) [2019] ZALCJHB 98 (15 May 2019).