Condonation of delay denied where the explanation lacked diligence and credibility, barring the appeal on limitation.

Delay in filing an appeal will not be condoned where the explanation is not credible and does not show sufficient cause. The Tribunal held that the departmental office was expected to detect the filing defect and act with due diligence, and it treated the late signing of the authorisation letter as inconsistent with the claim that the appeal papers had been prepared earlier. On that basis, the delay was not condoned, the application was rejected, and the appeal could not be entertained on limitation; the connected stay petition also failed.

---

---

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

Analysis: The explanation offered for the delay was found unacceptable, as the departmental office was expected to notice the defect in filing and act with due diligence. The Tribunal also noted that the authorisation letter was signed only shortly before the appeal was received, which weakened the plea that the papers had been prepared much earlier.

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

Final Conclusion: The appeal could not be entertained on limitation and the connected stay petition also failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A delay will not be condoned where the explanation lacks diligence and credibility and does not establish sufficient cause.

---