About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Port Elizabeth Labour Court, Port Elizabeth
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Port Elizabeth Labour Court, Port Elizabeth
>>
2011
>>
[2011] ZALCPE 11
|
|
Mazingi v Department of Health - Eastern Cape (East London Hospital Complex) and Others (P559/07) [2011] ZALCPE 11 (21 October 2011)
MXOLISI
ERIC MAZINGI V DEPT OF HEALTH & OTHERS CASE NUMBER P559-07.
LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSAL TO GRANT CONDONATION.
Molahlehi
J
IN THE
LABOUR
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD IN PORT ELIZABETH
CASE NO: P559/07
In the matter between:
MXOLISI ERIC MAZINGI
…..........................................................................
APPLICANT
and
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH –EASTERN
CAPE
(EAST LONDON HOSPITAL COMPLEX)
…....................................
1
ST
RESPONDENT
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
BARGAINING COUNCIL (PHSDSBC)
….........................................
2
ND
RESPONDENT
L BONO NO
….......................................................................................
3
RD
Respondent
Considered in chambers
Date of judgement : 21 October 2011
JUDGMENT
Molahlehi J
Introduction
This is an application in terms of
which the applicant seeks leave to appeal against the decision of
this court which was made
on 13 July 2011 in terms of which the
applicant’s application condonation for the late filing of the
applicant’s
review application was refused.
The generally
accepted test to apply in dealing with an application for leave to
appeal is
that
of a reasonable possibility that another Court might come to a
different conclusion than the one reached by the Court
a
quo.
This
test has been applied in various decisions of this Court and other
Courts of this country. See
Dince
v Department of Education
,
North
West Province
[2010]
6 BLLR 631 (LC)
and
Shell
SA Energy (Pty) Ltd v NBCCI & others
[2010] JOL 25841
(LC) and
Momentum Group Ltd v
Maritz
[2006] JOL 17615
(T).
Thus in the present matter what the
court must consider is
the
question of a reasonable possibility that another Court may come to
a different conclusion to the one reached in the order
of dismissing
the applicant’s application for condonation.
I do not deem it necessary for the
purpose of this judgement to repeat each and every ground for leave
to appeal stated by the
applicant in his application. I have had the
opportunity to consider the submissions made by the applicant and
the judgment made
by this court earlier and have come to the
conclusion that there are no prospects that another court is likely
to come to a conclusion
different to the one reached by this court
in dismissing the applicant’s application for condonation. I
also do not find
any merit in the complaint of the applicant that
this court did not assist him or afforded him an opportunity to find
legal representation.
In the premises the applicant’s
application for leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court is
dismissed with no order as
to costs.
Molahlehi
J
Judge of the Labour Court of South
Africa
Appearances
The matter was considered in chambers.
1