About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZALCJHB 182
|
|
Motebu v Sylvania Metals (JS617/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 182 (20 February 2017)
THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not
Reportable
case
no: JS 617/16
In the
matter between:
JAMES
MOTEBU
APPLICANT
and
SYLVANIA
METALS
RESPONDENT
Date
of ruling
:
20
February 2016 (In Chambers)
RULING:
LEAVE TO APPEAL
VAN
NIEKERK J
[1] This is an
application for leave to appeal against a judgment delivered by this
court on 7 November 2016. In the order, I afforded
the applicant an
opportunity to file an application to condone the late referral of
his dispute to this court within 7 days, failing
which the referral
would be dismissed.
[2] The purpose of the
order was to afford the applicant, who had filed his application for
review out of time, an opportunity to
apply for condonation.
Strictly, the court was entitled to dismiss the application for want
of jurisdiction. The court was entitled,
if not obliged, to have
regard to the jurisdictional point since to hear the matter without
the requisite jurisdiction would amount
to an infringement of the
rule of law. There is thus no merit in the applicant’s
contention that the court erred in raising
and considering this
point. To the extent that the applicant submits that the order was
made without his consent, the reality that
confronted the applicant
was to agree to the postponement and avail himself of an opportunity
to file an application for condonation,
or to have the application
dismissed. The raised no objection to the matter being postponed so
as to enable him to explain late
referral of his dispute.
[3]
The present application was itself filed out of time without any
application for condonation. On that basis, strictly, the application
should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. However, having regard
to the relevant test, there is no merit whatsoever in the
application
for leave to appeal; indeed, I concur with the respondent’s
submission that the application is nothing less than
egregious. In my
view, and in the light of the broad discretion conferred on the court
by s 162, the requirements of the law and
fairness dictate that the
applicant should be liable for the costs of the application.
For the above reasons,
make the following order:
1.
The
application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs
ANDRÉ VAN NIEKERK
JUDGE
OF THE LABOURT COURT