About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZALCJHB 101
|
|
Ramadiba v Limpopo Legislature and Others (J2568/10) [2015] ZALCJHB 101 (18 March 2015)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA,
IN JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: J2568/10
DATE: 18 MARCH 2015
Not Reportable
In the matter between:
RAMADIBA, MOTLATSO
ANGELINA
......................................................................
First
Applicant
And
LIMPOPO
LEGISLATURE
........................................................................................
First
Respondent
MAAKE, JOSIAS SELLO
(N.O.)
...........................................................................
Second
Respondent
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND
ARBITRATION
........................................................................
Third
Respondent
NGOBENI, EVA
(N.O.)
............................................................................................
Fourth
Respondent
JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
LAGRANGE, J
Introduction
[1] The applicant for leave to appeal
and the first respondent are cited as they were in the original
proceedings in which judgement
was handed down on 14 December 2014.
Preliminary issue - the Application
to Strike out
[2] Having filed her notice of her
intention to apply for leave to appeal , the applicant did not take
further steps to file her
submissions as required by paragraph 15.2
of the Labour Court Practice Manual. The first respondent’s
attorneys noted its
opposition to the application and advise the
applicant that it would file its answering submissions and/or
affidavit once she had
complied with the court rules and the practice
directive. Instead of going to look at what the Labour Court Rules
and the Practice
Directive said on the prosecution of an application
for leave to appeal, the applicant’s Attorney sought direction
from the
first respondent as to what she should do and threatened to
apply to have the offending advice struck out if the first respondent
did not provide more detail. When the first respondent’s
attorneys reiterated what was stated in the notice of opposition,
the
applicant proceeded to launch an application to strike out the advice
in the notice of opposition and applied for the application
to be set
down for hearing.
[3] To forestall such a pointless
application, the Court drew the applicant’s attention to
paragraph 15 of the Labour Court
Practice Direction and directed the
applicant to file her submissions on the application for leave to
appeal by 11 March 2015.
The applicant was also directed to file
heads of argument in support of the application to strike out
together with her submissions
on leave to appeal if she intended to
persist with that application. The parties were also advised that the
Court saw no need to
set that matter down for a hearing. No heads in
support of the application to strike out were filed and accordingly I
accept that,
that application has been withdrawn.
[4] The costs of this withdrawn
application remain to be determined and should be determined on
appeal.
Merits of the appeal
[5] While I am not persuaded of an
inherent merit in the specific grounds for leave to appeal as they
relate to my reasoning in
my judgement, the unusual history of the
case is sufficiently novel to believe it is possible that another
Court may come to a
different conclusion. Accordingly, I am inclined
to grant leave to appeal against the judgement handed down in this
matter on 14
December 2014.
Order
[6] Leave to appeal against the
judgement in this matter handed down on 14 December 2014 is granted.
[7] Costs of the application including
the interlocutory application to strike out shall be costs in the
appeal.
R LAGRANGE, J
Judge of the Labour Court
(In chambers)
18 March 2015