RECAP ON THE TEST FOR THE GRANTING OF CONDONATION

Posted: September 6, 2013 in Uncategorized
  1. It is trite that condonation is not merely for the asking and that in determining whether condonation should be granted the court will judicially exercise a discretion to determine whether the granting of condonation would be in the interest of justice by considering inter alia the following facts and circumstances: –[1]

 

“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…

 

[a]nd the prospects of success”.

 

  1. Where the delay is extensive, the applicant is required to provide a satisfactory explanation for the full period or every period of the delay[2] and must make reference to “the date, duration and extent of any obstacle on which reliance is placed”.[3] 

 

  1. If no acceptable explanation is provided for the delay or no explanation provided for certain periods of the delay then condonation will be refused irrespective as to how good the prospects of success might be[4] Similarly and where there are no prospects of success condonation will be refused irrespective as to how good an explanation for the delay might be provided.[5]


[1]           Van Wyk v Unitas Hospital and Another [2007] ZACC 24; 2008 (2) SA 472 (CC); [2008] (4) BCLR 442 (CC) at § [20]; Also Melane v Santam Ins urance Co Ltd 1962 (4) SA 531 (A) at 532C – F.

[2]           eThekwini Municipality and Ingonyama Trust [2013] ZACC 7; 2013 (5) BCLR 497 (CC) per Jafta J at § [28]; Van Wyk v Unitas Hospital and Another supra at [22]; National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa v Hillside Aluminium [2005] 6 BLLR 601 (LC) per Murphy AJ (as he was then)

[3]           Uitenhage Transitional Local Council v South African Revenue Service 2004 (1) SA 292 (SCA) at § [6].

[4]           P E Bosman Transport Works Committee v Piet Bosman Transport (Pty) Ltd 1980 (4) SA 794 (AD) at 799D-E per Muller JA; Inter alia quoted with approval in Ferreira v Ntshingila 1990 (4) SA 271 (AD) at 281D-282A

[5]           Chetty v Law Society, Transvaal 1985 (2) 756 (A) at 765 A-C; National Union of Mineworkers & others v Western Holdings Gold Mine (1994) 15 ILJ 610 (LAC) at 613E; National Union of Mineworkers v Council for Mineral Technology [1999] 3 BLLR 209 (LAC) at 211G-I per Myburgh JP

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s