About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2011
>>
[2011] ZALCJHB 214
|
|
Road Traffic Management Corporation and Another v Moyana (J2127/10) [2011] ZALCJHB 214 (5 May 2011)
Case
number: J2127/10 ROAD TRAFIC MANAGEMENT COORPORATION v MOYANA
HLENGANI JACKSON – Leave to appeal refused. Failure
to
extend 60 days in terms of provisions of the SMS Handbook.
2011
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT JOHANNESBURG.
Not reportable
Case number: J2127/10
In the matter between:
ROAD TRAFIC MANAGEMENT
COORPORATION
...............................................................................
1
ST
Applicant
LETSOALO COLLINS NO
...................................................................
2
nd
Applicant
And
MOYANA HLENGANI
JACKSON
.........................................................
Respondent
Judgement
Molahlehi J
This is an application
for leave to appeal against the judgment of this court which was
made on 10 November 2010. In terms of
that judgment the court
treated the matter as urgent and found the suspension of the
respondent, Mr Moyana to have been unlawful
it went beyond the 60
(sixty) days as prescribed and was never extended by the applicant
as required in terms of the SMS Handbook.
The court also found that
the applicant, (respondent in the urgent application) had failed to
extend the 60 (sixty) days of suspension
of the respondent required
by the SMS Handbook.
The applicant in its
ground for leave to appeal contends that this court erred in finding
that:
the application was
urgent
the Court had
jurisdiction to determine the unlawfulness (or) otherwise of the
suspension
the provisions of
the SMS Handbook are applicable as binding (in) contractual terms
instead of as a guide;
the provisions of
the SMS Handbook and in particular clause 2.7 (2) are peremptory.
The applicant contends
further that the Court erred in dealing with the suspension
provisions of the SMS Handbook without regard
to the context in which
the suspension occurred including not treating the postponement as an
extension of the 60 (sixty) days
of suspension.
In considering whether
or not to grant leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court I am
called upon to evaluate the possibility
that another court is likely
to come to a different conclusion to the one reached by this court
in this matter. In other words
I am called upon to determine whether
there may be reasonable prospects that another court may come to a
different conclusion
than the one reached by this court. This court
has the power to grant or refuse leave to appeal in terms of
section
166
of the
Labour Relations Act of 1995
.
I have considered the
submissions made by both parties including the authorities referred
thereto including my judgment on the
matter. I am of the view that
my judgement is correct in all respects and thus there is no
reasonable possibility that another
court is likely to arrive at a
decision different to the one made by me.
It is accordingly my
view that the applicant has failed to make out a case for leave to
appeal and thus its application for leave
to appeal stand to fail.
In the premises leave to
the Labour Appeal Court is refused with no order as to costs.
_______________
Molahlehi J
Judge of the labour
court
Date of judgement: 5 May
2011
Appearances:
The matter was considered in chambers.
1