Minister of Department of Rural Development and Land Reform and others v Poit and others
| Jurisdiction | http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa |
| Judge | Muvangua AJ |
| Judgment Date | 06 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | LCC205/2021 |
| Hearing Date | 16 November 2022 |
| Court | Land Claims Court |
Muvangua AJ:
Introduction:
The applicants seek an order from this court condoning the late filing of their answering affidavit in review proceedings before this court and under the same case number. I will refer to those proceedings as the main proceedings in this judgment.
The application for condonation arises out of the following background. On 6 December 2021, the respondents, who are the applicants in the main proceedings, filed an application for the review and setting aside of: a decision to pay them (respectively) compensation of R36 000.00 in respect of claims lodged by the applicants (in the main proceedings); as well as for the review and setting aside of the respective settlement agreements that were signed by the first and second respondents.
The applicants (who are respondents in the main proceedings) filed their notice of intention to oppose the review application on 10 January 2022. In
2023 JDR 0343 p3
Muvangua AJ
terms of rule 35 of the Land Claims Court, [1] the applicants ought to have dispatched the record of decision within 15 days. The record was dispatched two months later, and it was indexed on 31 March 2022. The respondents then prepared and filed their supplementary affidavit on 6 April 2022. This set in motion the dies for the filing of an answering affidavit by the applicants. It was common cause between the parties before me that the answering affidavit was due to be filed by 29 April 2022.
The respondents served the applicants with a notice of bar on 12 May 2022, which required them to file an answering affidavit by 19 May 2022. The applicants filed their answering affidavit 15 days out of time, on 26 May 2022.
Legal Principles Applicable to the Granting of Condonation:
The principles applicable to the granting of condonation are settled in law. The Constitutional Court in Mphephu-Ramabulana [2] summarised the legal position as follows:
". . . compliance with this Court's Rules and timelines is not optional, and . . . condonation for any non-compliance is not at hand merely for the asking. The question in each case is "whether the interests of justice permit" that condonation be granted. Factors such as the extent and cause of the delay, the reasonableness of the explanation for the delay, the effect of the delay on the administration of justice and other litigants, and the prospects of success on the merits if condonation is granted, are relevant to determining what the interests of justice dictate in any given case." [3]
2023 JDR 0343 p4
Muvangua AJ
The court may take the following factors into account when determining whether the interests of justice permit the granting of condonation: the nature of the relief sought; [4] the extent and cause of the delay; [5] the reasonableness of the explanation for the delay; [6] the importance of the issue to be raised; [7] the effect of the delay on the administration of justice and other litigants; [8] and the prospects of success on the merits if condonation is granted. [9]
The Constitutional Court in Mphephu-Ramabulana also noted that "the extremity of the delay, coupled with the paucity of the explanation provided, justify the immediate refusal of condonation", but "lateness and inadequacy of the explanation provided are not necessarily dispositive of the question of condonation. This is because the other factors...
To continue reading
Request your trial