Condonation of delay refused where misplacement of the file was unexplained and diligence in pursuing appeal was lacking.

Delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because the explanation was found insufficient. The Tribunal held that the alleged misplacement of the file in the advocate's office was not satisfactorily explained and that the applicant had not shown due diligence in pursuing the matter. As a result, the application for condonation was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the explanation offered for the delay was not proper or sufficient. It held that the alleged misplacement of the file in the advocate's office was not satisfactorily explained and that the applicant had not shown diligence in pursuing the matter.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application was dismissed.

---