MEC for Public Works: North West Province and Another v Public Service Coordinating Bargaining Council and Others

The applicant sought to review and set aside an arbitration award issued by the third respondent on 18 December 2017. The review application was launched on 12 March 2018. The applicant failed to comply with clause 11.2.7 of the Labour Court Practice Manual in two respects: (1) it failed to file all necessary papers within 12 months of launching the review (only filing a Rule 7A(8) notice on 22 September 2020, instead of by 12 March 2019); and (2) it failed to request a date for enrolment within 12 months (only requesting enrolment on 20 October 2020). On 17 November 2020, Mabaso AJ struck the matter from the roll for non-compliance with the Practice Manual. Almost four years later, on 27 August 2024, the applicant brought an application to reinstate the matter on the roll, offering no explanation for either the initial delays or the delay in bringing the reinstatement application.

• Whether the applicant demonstrated good cause for reinstatement of the review application
• Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for non-compliance with the Labour Court Practice Manual
• Whether the applicant established reasonable prospects of success in the underlying review
• Whether it would be in the interests of justice to reinstate the review application
• The applicable test and requirements for condonation applications in the context of reinstating struck review applications

The application for reinstatement was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.

The reinstatement of a review application that has been struck from the roll is essentially a condonation application in which the applicant must demonstrate good cause by showing: (1) a reasonable explanation for the default in complying with the Practice Manual; (2) reasonable prospects of success in the underlying review; and (3) that it would be in the interests of justice to grant the order. Without a reasonable and acceptable explanation for delay, prospects of success are immaterial and the application for condonation must be refused. Bald allegations of prospects of success, without setting out specific allegations that would demonstrate such prospects, are insufficient. Review applications are urgent by their nature and parties are required to treat them as such.

The court observed that the applicant's reliance on City of Johannesburg and others v IMATU and others (2017) 38 ILJ 2695 (LAC) was misplaced, as that matter did not deal with an application to reinstate a review application and was not authority for the proposition that prospects of success and importance of the matter must be considered where there is no explanation at all for a lengthy delay. The court also noted the elastic nature of the concept of 'interests of justice' as articulated in Grootboom v The National Prosecuting Authority, which includes various interrelated factors such as the nature of relief sought, extent and cause of delay, effects on administration of justice, reasonableness of explanation, importance of issues, and prospects of success.

This case reinforces the strict approach South African courts take toward compliance with the Labour Court Practice Manual, particularly clause 11.2.7 regarding timelines for review applications. It clarifies that reinstatement applications are subject to the same condonation principles applied in other contexts, requiring a reasonable explanation for delay, prospects of success, and consideration of the interests of justice. The judgment emphasizes that where no explanation (as opposed to a weak explanation) is provided for default, other factors such as prospects of success become irrelevant. It underscores the importance of treating review applications as urgent and the consequences of failing to do so. The case serves as a warning that parties cannot simply assume reinstatement will be granted and must properly establish all requirements for condonation.