ubdIc
gy Pav P ace
S/ ese ry oN
\s3) Seay A aj
ON SLY
Qs S
CORSouS>
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
Reportable/Of interest to other Judges
Case no»C33/2021
In the matter between:
SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES Applicant
And
SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTORAL BARGAINING
COUNCIL First Respondent
JANA DELL Second Respondent
JA KOTZE Third Respondent
CLIVE GERALD BOWERS Fourth Respondent
Heard: 27 June 2025
Delivered; 11 July 2025
Summary: (Reinstatement application — discretionary power that has to be
exercised with circumspection and only in exceptional circumstances because of
a litigant’s constitutional rights in terms of Section 34 of the Constitution - a Court
cannot consider a delay in a vacuum but in light of all of the relevant facts
including the prejudice to the parties, the possible consequences of granting, or
of not granting the relief sought in respect of the merits, the prospects of success
and the interests of justice — protected promotion an available remedy available
in the most exceptional kind of cases where there is a certainty that the
complainant would have been appointed and if considered that actual damages
2
can be proven — no reasonable explanation for delay and no prospects of success
— application dismissed)
JUDGMENT
MAY, AJ
Introduction
[1] This is an opposed reinstatement application.
Condonation
[2] It is by now trite that an application for reinstatement is effectively an
application for condonation.'
[3] The review application was launched.on.the 20" of January 2021. The
record was received from the first respondent on the 26'" of March 2021 and
Notices in terms of Rule)7A (5) were also sent out by the Registrar on 26
March 2021. The Applicant however only delivered their Rule 7A (6) and (8)
notices as well/as the transcript on the 8" of March 2022 and it was only
filed at Court on 23 March 2022. On 5 April 2022, the fourth respondent filed
a notice objecting to the late filing of the Applicant’s Rule 7A (6) and Rule
7A8) Notices,on the basis that they have been filed outside of the time
periods as'provided for in the Rules of Court and Practice Manual with no
substantive application for condonation or extension of the time periods as
Provided for in Rule 7A.
[4] The Applicant launched an application for reinstatement of the review on 15
June 2023 which was only filed at Court on 2 August 2023. It was however
delivered by e mail to the Respondents and the Registrar on 15 June 2023.
1 Samuels v Old Mutual Bank [2017] 38 ILJ 1790 (LAC)
3
[5] Rule 7A (6) requires the delivery of the transcript and record and Rule 7A
(8) requires the delivery of a notice confirming that the Applicant either
stands by its Notice of Motion or intends supplementing the grounds of
review.
[6] Due to the deficiencies in the rules, the Practice Manuel was introduced
which were held to be binding.? Clause 11.2.2 requires that records must be
filed within 60 days of the date on which the applicant is advised by the
registrar that the record has been received. Clause 11.2.3 provides that if
the applicant fails to file a record within this period, the application will be
deemed withdrawn unless an extension of time and consent has been
sought from the respondent and is given.
[7] Clause 11.2.7 requires an applicantto ensure.that all necessary papers in
the application are filed within 12 months of the date of the launch of the
application and the registraris,informed in writing that the application is
ready for allocation for hearing. Where this time limit is not complied with,
the application will be archived and be regarded as lapsed unless good
cause is shown why the application should not be archived or be removed
from the archive.
[8] | TheApplicant has failed to comply with the clause 11.2.2 and thus in terms
of clause 17.2.3 the application is deemed withdrawn. The application was
deemed withdrawn on 28 June 2021 (60 days from 26 March 2021). Given
that the application was deemed withdrawn from the aforementioned date,
the time period in clause 11.2.7 is not implicated as an application cannot
be withdrawn or dismissed twice.
2 Samuels v Old Mutual Bank supra.