News / National
Prosecutor's application for late appeal dismissed
5 hrs ago | Views
The Labour Court has dismissed an application for condonation by Willbrought Muleya, an employee of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), after he failed to meet the deadline for filing an appeal against a disciplinary ruling issued in December 2024.
The application, heard by Justice Lawrence Murasi on May 27, 2025, stemmed from a disciplinary hearing conducted in August 2024, during which Muleya was found guilty of storing offensive images on his mobile phone. He was subsequently issued with a reprimand by the disciplinary authority.
Muleya sought to appeal the outcome but admitted that his appeal had been lodged 54 days late. In his ruling, Justice Murasi emphasized that condonation for late filing is not automatic and requires a satisfactory explanation for the delay, along with proof that the appeal has reasonable prospects of success.
"The applicant has not provided a reasonable or acceptable explanation for the delay," the judge said. He further highlighted that Muleya's failure to include a supporting affidavit from his previous legal representatives severely weakened his case.
The court also examined the merits of the appeal and found Muleya's chances of success "tenuous at best." Justice Murasi rejected claims that the disciplinary panel had used undisclosed evidence or improperly shifted the burden of proof during the proceedings.
Instead, he ruled that the evidence - particularly testimony from a police officer - was sufficient to link the explicit content to Muleya's mobile device.
"On a balance of probabilities, the conclusion that the images originated from the applicant's device was not only reasonable but inescapable," Justice Murasi stated.
With both the explanation for the delay and the appeal's merits found lacking, the court dismissed Muleya's application for condonation. No order as to costs was made.
The application, heard by Justice Lawrence Murasi on May 27, 2025, stemmed from a disciplinary hearing conducted in August 2024, during which Muleya was found guilty of storing offensive images on his mobile phone. He was subsequently issued with a reprimand by the disciplinary authority.
Muleya sought to appeal the outcome but admitted that his appeal had been lodged 54 days late. In his ruling, Justice Murasi emphasized that condonation for late filing is not automatic and requires a satisfactory explanation for the delay, along with proof that the appeal has reasonable prospects of success.
"The applicant has not provided a reasonable or acceptable explanation for the delay," the judge said. He further highlighted that Muleya's failure to include a supporting affidavit from his previous legal representatives severely weakened his case.
The court also examined the merits of the appeal and found Muleya's chances of success "tenuous at best." Justice Murasi rejected claims that the disciplinary panel had used undisclosed evidence or improperly shifted the burden of proof during the proceedings.
Instead, he ruled that the evidence - particularly testimony from a police officer - was sufficient to link the explicit content to Muleya's mobile device.
"On a balance of probabilities, the conclusion that the images originated from the applicant's device was not only reasonable but inescapable," Justice Murasi stated.
With both the explanation for the delay and the appeal's merits found lacking, the court dismissed Muleya's application for condonation. No order as to costs was made.
Source - The Herald
