About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
>>
2008
>>
[2008] ZALCCT 10
|
|
Wouterse v International Colleges Group (Pty) Ltd (C343/08) [2008] ZALCCT 10 (5 December 2008)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD
AT CAPE TOWN
NOT
REPORTABLE
CASE
NUMBER: C343/08
In
the matter between:
WOUTERSE,
JACQUELINE CHRISTINE NICOLETTE
Applicant
and
INTERNATIONAL
COLLEGES GROUP (PTY) LTD
Respondent
JUDGEMENT
NGALWANA
AJ
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgement of
this Court dated 5 December 2008. The grounds of appeal
are
essentially two-fold. The first is that the Court did not adopt a
balanced approach in determining the issue of condonation
for the
late filing of pleadings. I have considered the respondent’s
submissions in this regard and remain un-persuaded.
In my view, it is
unlikely that another court may come to a different conclusion on the
respondent’s submissions.
[2]
The second is that the Court erred in revisiting its earlier costs
order and awarding a more punitive costs order against the
respondent, when all it was called upon to do was furnish reasons for
the order dismissing the condonation application. The applicant
says
this is a moot point because she agreed to recover costs only as
originally ordered and not on the attorney and client scale.
[3]
This second aspect raises a procedural issue as regards whether a
Court may, in its discretion having considered a matter in
greater
detail since argument, deviate from its earlier costs order granted
ex tempore and grant a different order when giving
reasons for its
decision on the merits. Notwithstanding the issue having become moot
in this case, it is my respectful view that
it is nonetheless an
issue on which a higher Court ought to pronounce as it may come to a
different conclusion. It seems to me
with respect unpalatable and
undesirable that a Court should shackle itself in an earlier
judgement, given by it ex tempore, in
the name of consistency (or
such like) when it has become wiser by the time it sits down to
consider the reasons for it. Of course,
the respondent’s
persistence in this point given its mootness may very well prejudice
it in the event of the higher Court
finding that nothing prevents a
Court from deviating from an earlier ex tempore costs order when
giving written reasons for its
order on the merits.
[4]
In the result, leave to appeal is granted only in relation to the
second ground of appeal and refused in relation to the first.
[5]
The respondent filed its application for leave to appeal late. It
sought condonation for this. The applicant does not oppose
the
application. It is granted.
____________________
Ngalwana
AJ
Appearances
For
the applicant:
Mr GA Leslie
Instructed
by:
Justine Del Monte Attorneys
For
the respondent:
Mr B Guy
Instructed
by:
Maserumule Inc
Date
of hearing:
04
March 2009
Date
of judgment:
05 December 2008