y |
lel SRS |
oF > PAs
{ OF SOL ye
Not reportable
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
HELD AT CAPE TOWN
Case no: C 14/2025
In the matter between:
ROBIN NADASEN Plaintiff
And
LARAGH COURSEWARE (PTY) LTD Defendant
Date heard: 25 June 2025
Date delivered: 22July 2025
JUDGMENT
VENTER, AJ
Page 2
Introduction
[1] The Plaintiff approached the court seeking an order condoning the late
filing of his statement of claim and heads of argument.
[2] The application is opposed by the Defendant.
Background
[3] The Plaintiff was employed as a Graphic Designer from 1 November 2012
until his dismissal on 30 September 2024. The Plaintiff's employment was
terminated on 30 September 2024. It is common cause that the dismissal
was due to operational reasons.
[4] The Plaintiff referred a dispute to the Commission for Conciliation,
Mediation and Arbitration (the CCMA) and a conciliation hearing took
place on 3 October 2024. As the dispute remained unresolved, a certificate
of non-resolution was issued on the same day.
[5] The referral of an unfair dismissal dispute was filed at this court on 28
January 2025, approximately 26 days late. The Defendant filed a special
plea concerning the Plaintiff's failure to apply for condonation for the late
filing of the referral.
[6] The Plaintiffs attorney later submitted an application for condonation on 6
March 2025 after realizing that the referral was actually late.
Relevant legal principles relating to condonation
[7] The considerations regarding condonation have been settled and there
are various decided cases in this regard. In Melane v Santam ' the former
11962 (4) SA 531 (A). Also see Brummer v Gorfill Brothers Investments (Pty) Ltd and
Others (2000) ZACC 3; 2000 (5) BCLR 465 at para 3.
Page 3
Appeal Court confirmed the factors to be considered when deciding an
application for condonation.
[8] In Steenkamp and others v Edcon Ltd 2 the Constitutional Court confirmed
that the granting of condonation must be in the interest of justice and the
court referred to the Constitutional matter of Grootboom v National
Prosecuting Authority and Another °.
“[36] “The standard for considering an application for condonation is the
interests of justice. However, the concept ‘interests of justice’ is so
elastic that it is not capable of precise definition. As the two cases
demonstrate, it includes: the nature of the relief sought; the extent
and cause of the delay; the effect of the delay on the administration
of justice and other litigants; the reasonableness of the explanation
for the delay; the importance of the issue to be raised in the
intended appeal; and the prospects of success. It is crucial to
reiterate that both Brummer and Van Wyk emphasise that the
ultimate determination of what is in the interests of justice must
reflect due regard to all the relevant factors but it is not necessarily
limited to those mentioned above. The particular circumstances of
each case will determine which of these factors are relevant.
It is now trite that condonation cannot be had for the mere asking.
A party seeking condonation must make out a case entitling it to the
court’s indulgence. It must show sufficient cause. This requires a
party to give a full explanation for the non-compliance with the rules
or the court’s directions. Of great significance, the explanation must
be reasonable enough to excuse the default.
The interests of justice must be determined with reference to all
relevant factors. However, some of the factors may justifiably be
left out of consideration in certain circumstances. For example,
where the delay is unacceptably excessive and there is no
explanation for the delay, there may be no need to consider the
2 (2019) 40 ILJ 1731 (CC)
3 (2014) 2 SA 68 (CC)