condonationbelated reviewnotice of hearingaudi alteram partemnullity
Tags
condonationlate reviewprocedural irregularity
legislation
Statutes Cited
Labour Act
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether applicants have provided reasonable explanation for delay in filing review application","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Application filed 2 months after 21-day period; explanation that attorney initially pursued conciliation"}
{"issue_text":"Whether applicants have prospects of success on review","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Disciplinary hearing notice gave less than 3 working days; section 6(4) of Code requires 3 working days notice"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the disciplinary proceedings are a nullity due to inadequate notice","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Notice dated 12 February for hearing on 15 February; Code requires 3 working days notice"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
Three applicants sought condonation for late filing of a review application challenging their dismissal. They claimed they received dismissal letters in March 2025 and that the disciplinary hearing had been scheduled with insufficient notice in violation of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases