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 110
|
|
Nimro 152 (Pty) Ltd t/a Hennenman Pick n Pay Mini Market v Makhetha and Others (JR20/10) [2017] ZALCJHB 110 (30 March 2017)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not reportable
Case
no: JR 20/10
In
the matter between:
NIMRO
152 (PTY) LTD t/a HENNENMAN
PICK
N PAY MINI
MARKET
Applicant
and
TSHEPANG
GEORGE
MAKHETHA
First Applicant
SELLO
MOPHAKI
N.O.
Second Respondent
THE
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION
Third Respondent
Heard:
Decided in chambers
Delivered:
30 March 2017
JUDGMENT: LEAVE TO APPEAL
RABKIN-NAICKER
J
[1] This
is an application for condonation for the late noting of an appeal. I
handed down judgment in the above matter on 14 June
2016. An
application for leave to appeal was delivered on 13 February 2017,
some 7 months out of time.
[2] Mr.
Goldberg for the applicant avers that his client wished to appeal the
judgment but he advised him to await the Constitutional
Court
decision in
Myathaza v
Johannesburg Metropolitan Bus Services (SOC) Limited t/a Metrobus and
Others
[1]
decided on 15 December 2016.
[3]
According to his papers, he became aware of the judgment on
10 January 2017. The further excessive delay is explained
in his affidavit by reciting his work diary up until 13 February
2017.
[4] The
order in my judgment was premised on a binding judgment of the Labour
Appeal Court. The order was made according to the
principles of
stare
decisis
. It is trite that
this rule is not simply a matter of respect for the courts of higher
authority but a manifestation of the rule
of law itself. To deviate
from this rule is to invite legal chaos.
[2]
[4] The
notion that a litigant can await the decision of the Constitutional
Court before launching an application for leave to appeal
against a
judgment of this Court offends against the rule of law. It also
offends against the Rules of this Court which exist to
regulate legal
proceedings in an orderly way in order to see that justice is done.
[5] In
the circumstances, this application cannot be granted. The attorney
for the applicant should not be permitted to charge his
client fees
for this application.
Order
[6]
I make the following order:
1.
The application for condonation is dismissed.
2.
The attorney for the applicant is precluded from charging attorney
client fees
for this application.
____________________
H. Rabkin-Naicker
Judge of the Labour Court of South
Africa
[1]
[2016] ZACC 49
;
(2017) 38 ILJ 527 (CC); [2017] 3 BLLR 213 (CC).
[2]
See
Camps Bay Ratepayers
and Residents Association and Another v Harrison and Another
[2010] ZACC 19
;
2011 (2) BCLR 121
(CC);
2011 (4) SA 42
(CC) para 28