1
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Case No: JR 1685/22
In the matter between:
FILVENT (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTRE (MIBCO) First Respondent
DIALE NTSOANE N.O Second Respondent
DAVID JOHANNES NEL Third Respondent
Heard: 29 October 2025
Delivered: 20 March 2026
_________________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
_________________________________________________________________________
PHAJANE, AJ
Introduction
(1) Reportable: Yes/No
(2) Of interest to other Judges: Yes/No
(3) Revised
____________ ______________
2
[1] This is an application for condonation for the late filing of the applicant’s review
application before this Court . The application is brought in terms of the Rules of
this Court. The application is unopposed.
[2] The issue before the Court is whether the applicant has shown good cause for
the late filing of the review application.
Legal Principles
[3] The principles governing condonation are well established. The leading authority
remains Melane v Santam Insurance Co Ltd 1, where the Court held that the
factors relevant to the determination of condonation include: the degree of
lateness; the explanation for the delay; the prospects of success on the merits;
the importance of the case; and prejudice to the parties.
[4] These factors are interrelated and must be weighed together in determining
whether it is in the interest of justice to grant condonation.
[5] The Constitutional Court in Grootboom v National Prosecuting Authority and
another
2 emphasized that the overarching consideration in condonation
applications is in the best interest of justice.
[6] Furthermore, the Labour Appeal Court in Colett v C ommission for C onciliation,
Mediation & Arbitration & others3 held that prospects of success are an important
consideration in determining whether condonation should be granted.
Degree of Lateness and Explanation
[7] The delay in this matter is six (6) days, and the explanation given in the affidavit
avers that the delay was occasioned by an administrative oversight in the offices
of the applicant’s attorneys. The attorney’s secretary had received the signed
affidavit but proceeded on leave before bringing it to the attorney’s attention. As a
1 1962 (4) SA 531 (A).
2 (2014) 35 ILJ 121 (CC).
3 (2014) 35 ILJ 1948 (LAC).
3
result, the matter was inadvertently not dealt with within the prescribed period.
The explanation advanced is credible and sufficiently detailed to enable the Court
to exercise its discretion judicially.
[8] In my view, s ix days is not extraordinary, and the explanation is reasonable and
acceptable in the circumstances.
Prospects of success and Prejudice
[9] Another crucial factor in the exercise of this Court’s discretion to grant
condonation is whether the applicant’s review application has reasonable
prospects of success. The applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of
success in the review application. While this Court is not required at this stage to
determine the merits of the review, the grounds advanced disclose an arguable
case that the commissioner may have committed a reviewable irregularity. In
light of this, I am of the view that the applicant has established sufficient
prospects of s uccess, which, when considered together with the short delay,
justifies condonation.
[10] In the premises, the granting of condonation will not unfairly prejudice the third
respondent.
Conclusion
[11] Weighing all the relevant factors, it is in the interest of justice to grant
condonation.
Order
1. The application for condonation for the late filing of a review application is
granted.
2. There is no order as to costs.
4
_____________________
GK Phajane
Acting Judge of the Labour Court
Appearance
For the Applicant: Mr. AB Brandmullers, Brandmullers Inc.
For the Third Respondent: No appearance