Kachelhoffer v Agricultural Rural Development Corporation (JS234/02) [2002] ZALC 177 (18 October 2002)

40 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Condonation — Late referral of dismissal dispute — Applicant's delay of twelve days attributed to miscalculation by legal representative — Court finding explanation for delay reasonable and granting condonation — No order as to costs due to lack of blame on applicant and prejudice to respondent.

Sneller Verbatim/HDJ
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS234/02
2002-10-18
In the matter between
P M KACHELHOFFER Applicant
and
AGRICULTURAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT CORP Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
_______________________________________________________________
_
REVELAS J:
1. This is an application for the condonation of the late  
referral   of   a   dismissal   received   by   the   applicant  
through the Labour Court.  The delay is twelve days. In  
other words, the dispute was filed twelve days out of  
time.     The   explanation   offered   by   the   applicant   for  
this delay which, in my view, is almost negligible, is  
that   the   consultant   whom   he   took   advice   from,  
miscalculated   the   amount   of   days   by   not   referring   to

the   correct   Act.     On   23   March   2002   the   applicant's  
legal   representative   was   notified   by   the   respondent's  
attorney that an application for condonation had to be  
brought   in   respect   of   the   late   referral.     Only   six  
months   later,  in   September,  the   applicant  brought   the  
application for condonation. The   delay   is   due   to   the  
fact   that   the   applicant's   representative   was   of   the  
firm   opinion   that   condonation   need   not   be   brought.  
This was an error which should not be attributable to  
the applicant.
2. Considering   the  explanation   for  the   delay,  the   degree  
of lateness and the prospects of success, which on the  
papers   seem   to   be   reasonable,   I   believe   that  
condonation for the late referral should be granted.  
3. However, when considering the question of costs, I have  
to take into account that the applicant personally was  
not to blame for this delay.   On the other hand, the  
respondent was also prejudiced by the delay.
4. I do not believe that a punitive cost order against any  
party would address the respondent's prejudice.
5. In the circumstances, I make the following order:
1. The   late   referral   of   the   applicant's   dispute   to   the  
Labour Court is condoned.
2. There is no order as to costs.

_________________
E. Revelas