About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2014
>>
[2014] ZALCJHB 239
|
|
Metsimaholo Local Municipality v IMATU and Others (JS101/2010) [2014] ZALCJHB 239 (4 July 2014)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Reportable
Case no: JS101/2010
In the matter between
METSIMAHOLO
LOCAL
MUNICIPALITY
.......................................................................
Applicant
and
IMATU obo JJ ROUX AND
H
KLAUMANNS-MOLLER
.....................................................................................
Third
Respondent
Delivered: 4 July 2014
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
COETZEE,
AJ
[1]
The
applicant's review application was argued before this Court on 6
December 2013.
[2]
After
having heard argument I rendered an
ex
tempore
judgment on 6 December 2013
giving full reasons for the judgment.
[3]
I
dismissed the application with no order as to costs.
[4]
The
Applicant, on 14 May 2014, served and filed a notice of application
for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment.
[5]
Applicant
has obtained a transcript of the judgment and reasons on 29 April
2014.
[6]
Both
parties filed written submissions in respect of the application for
leave to appeal. Applicant filed its written submissions
on 28 May
2014. Respondents filed their written submissions on 23 June 2014.
[7]
I
have considered the application for leave to appeal and the parties'
written submissions in chambers.
[8]
The
respondents raised a point
in limine
to the effect that applicant has not complied with the Rules of the
Labour Court in filing its notice of application for leave
to appeal.
Applicant has also not submitted an application for condonation for
non-compliance with the rules.
[9]
A
dissatisfied litigant does not enjoy an automatic right of appeal.
The litigant requires the leave of the Labour Court to appeal
against
its judgment or order.
[10]
The
procedural requirements are set out in Rule 30 of the Rules of the
Labour Court. Rule 30 provides as follows:
'30. Application for leave to
appeal to the Labour Appeal Court.
(1) An application for leave to
appeal to the Labour Appeal Court may be made, by way of a statement
of the grounds for leave, at
the time of the judgment or order.
(2) If leave to appeal has not
been made at the time of judgment or order, an application for leave
must be made and the grounds
for appeal furnished within 15 days of
the date of the judgment or order against which leave to appeal is
sought except that the
court may, on good cause shown, extend that
period.
(3) If the reasons or the full
reasons for the court’s order are given on a date later than
the date of the judgment or order,
the application for leave to
appeal must be made within 10 days after the date on which the
reasons are given, except that the
court may, on good cause shown,
extend that period.'
[11]
Respondents
make the point that the
ex tempore
judgment of 6 December 2013 was a judgment with full reasons. The
point is correctly made.
[12]
Respondents
further contend that the application for leave to appeal had to be
made within 15 days of 6 December 2013.
[13]
Instead.
the application was made only on 14 May 2014 approximately five
months later.
[14]
The
application for leave to appeal has not been made within 15 days of 6
December 2013 and required an application for condonation.
There is
no such an application.
[15]
The
rules and time limits are there for a reason.
[16]
The
Constitutional Court in
Mohlomi v
Minister of Defence
,
[1]
said:
‘
Rules
that limit the time during which litigation may be launched are
common in our legal system as well as many others. Inordinate
delays
in litigating damage the interests of justice… such rules
prevent procrastination and those harmful consequences
of it. They
thus serve a purpose to which no exception in principle can cogently
be taken.’
[17]
Bosielo,
AJ sitting in the Constitutional Court in
Grootboom
v National Prosecuting Authority and Another
[2]
remarked:
‘
I
need to remind practitioners and litigants that the rules and courts’
directions serve as a necessary purpose. Their primary
aim is to
ensure that the business of our courts is run effectively and
efficiently. Invariably this will lead to the orderly management
of
our courts’ rolls, which in turn will bring about the
expeditious disposal of cases in the most cost effective manner.’
[18]
In
respect of the Applicant's application for leave to appeal, I need
not consider whether the circumstances of the application
for leave
to appeal meet the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of
section 17
(1) of the
Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013
.
[19]
In
the absence of an application for condonation the application for
leave to appeal is fatally defective and there is no reason
why the
respondents should be saddled with costs.
[20]
Under
the circumstances I make the following order:
20.1
The application is dismissed.
20.2
Applicant is ordered to pay the costs of
the application for leave to appeal.
_______________
Coetzee AJ
Acting Judge of the Labour Court
Appearances:
No appearances as the matter was dealt with in Chambers
[1]
[1996] ZACC 20
;
1997 (1) SA 124
(CC) at para 11
[2]
(2014) 35 ILJ 121 (CC) at para 32. See also
eThekwini Municipality v Ingonyama
Trust
2013 (5) BCLR 497
(CC).