THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: JR 945/24
In the matter between:
MANDLA CHILOANE Applicant
and
THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION First Respondent
ELIAS LEKGWATHI NO Second Respondent
ESKOM ARNOT POWER STATION Third Respondent
MR NTULI Fourth Respondent
Heard: 30 April 2025
Delivered: 6 August 2025
JUDGMENT
2
DANDADZI, AJ
Introduction
[1] This matter was scheduled before me for an unopposed condonation
application for the late filing of a review application.
[2] The Applicant, who was legally represented, launched a condonation and
review application on 18 July 2024, following the issuing of an arbitration award by
the CCMA on 1 February 2023, some 17 months after the award was issued.
Condonation
[3] The requirements that must be satisfied to succeed in an application for
condonation are well -known. An applicant in a condonation application must set out
the degree of the delay and show good cause for the delay; further, the applicant
must deal with the prospects of success on the merits and prejudice to the
respondent.
1 It is trite that condonation is not for the mere asking. An applicant for
condonation seeks an indulgence from the Court and is to show sufficient cause to
succeed in the grant of condonation by the Court.
[4] The condonation and review applications were filed outside the six -week
period within which a matter must be filed before the L abour Court, making the
application approximately 16 months late in bringing the review application.
[5] The Applicant attributes the delay in filing the review application to his trade
union, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), which he contends he had
instructed to file the review. He alleges that the union misled him into believing that a
review application had, in fact, been instituted before this Court, when in truth, no
such application had been filed.
1 See: Melane v Santam Insurance Co Ltd 1962 (4) SA 531 (A).
3
[6] The Applicant contends that he only followed up with the union on the status
of his review application in January 2024, approximately 11 months after the
arbitration award was issued. He was advised that the trade union’s contract with the
firm of attorneys it had been using had expired, and that another firm needed to be
engaged to take the matter forward.
[7] The condonation application failed to set out any reasons why the Applicant
believed he had prospects of success, nor did the Applicant’s legal representative
advance any such grounds before me.
[8] It was further submitted that it was in the interests of justice that condonation
be granted because it was not the Applicant’s fault that the review had been filed
late.
[9] While submissions were made in respect of the review application itself, I will
first deal with the condonation application. Should condonation be granted, I will then
consider the submissions relating to the review application.
[10] It is trite that a condonation application must be filed without undue delay
and/or as soon as an applicant becomes aware of the need to do so. This principle
was reaffirmed by the Labour Appeal Court in Allround Tooling (Pty) Ltd v NUMSA
and Others .
2 The condonation application was brought well out of time, and the
Applicant blames his trade union for the delay. However, annexures show that as
early as March 2023, email correspondence from the trade union indicated no
appetite to bring a review application, stating there were minimal grounds and that
the Applicant had been advised prior to arbitration that his case was unlikely to
succeed.
[11] Following this engagement between March and April 2023, the Applicant
made no further follow -up until November 2023, when a trade union official advised
him that the matter ‘should be sitting at the Labour Court ’. Without a definitive
answer, the Applicant took no further steps to enquire about the status of his review
2 [1998] 8 BLLR 847 (LAC) at para [8].
4
application. In my view, the Applicant was complacent in prosecuting his review
application, particularly in relying on the trade union’s word without obtaining
confirmation of the review application or the relevant case number , and his failure to
articulate the reasons for such a prolonged period of delay is fatal to his condonation
application. A party seeking condonation must set out all the facts and
circumstances of the delay and, most importantly, must provide a satisfactory
explanation for each period of the delay. Where the reasons proffered lack detail and
no account is made for each period of the delay, the explanation amounts to no
explanation.
3
[12] No effort was made to address me on the Applicant’s prospects of success. It
was simply submitted that it would be in the interests of justice to grant condonation,
as the late filing of the review application was not the Applicant’s fault. I have already
expressed my views regarding the extent of the delay and the Applicant’s
complacency in bringing the matter before this Court. In the absence of submissions
on prospects of success and without a valid explanation for the delay, condonation
cannot be granted. The condonation application is therefore dismissed.
[13] As there is no basis for granting condonation, I need not canvass the grounds
for review in this judgment.
[14] In view of the afore-going, the following order is made:
Order
1. The condonation application is dismissed.
2. There is no order as to costs.
N. L. Dandadzi
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
3 Ntsele v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (JR1459/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 161
(16 May 2017) at para [9].
5
For the Applicant: Mr C.E Kgapane for Kgapane Attorneys