Automated Summary
Key Facts
Future Colourful Limited sought to challenge a Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA) decision dated 2019-09-05, which was originally scheduled for delivery on 2019-08-23. The applicant claimed no notice of the judgment date was given after the adjournment, becoming aware of the decision on 2019-10-23. The application to extend time was filed on 2019-11-11, 18 days after awareness. The court ruled that the applicant acted diligently, granted the application, and allowed 30 days to initiate revision proceedings. No costs order was issued.
Issues
Whether the applicant's delay in filing the application to challenge the CMA decision was justified due to lack of notice of the judgment date and the court's discretion in granting an extension of time.
Holdings
The court granted the applicant's application for an extension of time, ruling that she acted diligently by filing within 18 days of becoming aware of the judgment on 23rd October 2019. The application was accepted as sufficient cause was shown, and the applicant was given 30 days from the ruling date (10th February 2022) to initiate revision proceedings. The judgment found no evidence the applicant was notified of the 23rd August 2019 decision date or its adjournment.
Remedies
- The application was granted, allowing the applicant thirty days from the ruling date to initiate the intended revision proceedings.
- No order as to costs was issued by the court.
Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that an application for extension of time must demonstrate good cause and account for each day of the delay. It ruled that the applicant showed sufficient diligence by acting within 18 days of becoming aware of the judgment, as the CMA failed to provide notice of the judgment date after adjournment.
Judge Name
M.M. SIYANI
Passage Text
- The case was heard by written submissions where the counsel for the parties have repeated the contents of the affidavit and counter affidavit. In the submissions arguments, counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has shown good cause sufficient to grant the application while the opposing counsel has argued that no good cause has been shown and the applicant has not accounted for each day of the delay. That the applicant was negligent to follow up the adjournment of the case.
- It is now settled that an application for extension of time ought to be granted upon showing a good cause and accounting for each day of the delay. ... The applicant did not state to which use she put those days but presumably it was on preparation of this application which is enough account of the delay. The applicant acted diligently by filing the application within eighteen days. The application is therefore granted and the applicant is given thirty days from the date of this ruling to initiate the intended revision proceedings. No order as to costs is issued.