About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZALCJHB 439
|
|
Majavu v Lesidi Local Municipality and Others (J 1512/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 439 (8 June 2018)
In the matter between:
SANDI
MAJAVU
Applicant
And
LESEDI
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
First Respondent
ISAAC
RAMPEDI
N.
O
Second Respondent
SPEAKER
OF LESEDI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Third Respondent
NOT
REPORTABLE
Case
NO:J 1512/17
Decided:
In Chambers
Delivered:
8 June 2018
JUDGMENT:
LEAVE TO APPEAL
TLHOTLHALEMAJE,
J
[1]
The
applicant’s unopposed application was heard on
20 February 2018. In the application, the applicant
(Majavu)
challenged the legality of his dismissal from the employ of
the first respondent, the Lesedi local Municipality (Municipality).
Majavu’s main contention was that the Municipal Manager who had
initiated the charges of misconduct against him, had been
employed/appointed by the Municipality in direct contravention of the
provisions of section 54A of the Local Government: Municipal
Systems
Act.
[1]
To the extent that this
was the case, he contended that the exercise of the Municipal
Manager’s purported power to dismiss
him was invalid.
[2]
The matter was fully argued and judgment
was reserved and delivered on 6 March 2018, in terms of
which Majavu’s
application was dismissed
primarily on
grounds that the were fully set out in the judgment, and which shall
not be repeated herein. Majavu has since filed
an application for
leave to appeal against the whole judgment and order, contending that
the Court had erred on various grounds.
[3]
It is trite
that when considering applications for leave to appeal, the court
a
quo
must
be satisfied that there are reasonable prospects that another court,
in this case, the Labour Appeal Court, could arrive
a
different conclusion
than that arrived at by the court
a
quo
[2]
.
[4]
I have carefully studied Majavu’s submissions in seeking leave
to
appeal and have further reflected on my judgment and the reasons
advanced therein.
The issues raised in Majavu’s
submissions in support of his application for leave to appeal are
essentially those that were
dealt with at the hearing of the main
application and have been sufficiently addressed and dealt with in
the main judgment. No
purpose would be served by burdening this
judgment with a repeat of those issues. Consequently, I hold the firm
view that are no
sound or rational grounds for a conclusion to
be reached that the Labour Appeal Court could come to a different
conclusion to that
arrived by the court a quo.
Order:
[5]
Accordingly, the following order is made;
1.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
___________________
E.
Tlhotlhalemaje
Judge
of the Labour Court of South Africa
[1]
Act 32 of 2000, as amended
[2]
S v
Smith
2012 (1) SACR 567
(SCA) (15 March 2011) at para 7 where it was held:
‘
What
the test of reasonable prospects of success postulates is a
dispassionate decision, based on the facts and the law that a
court
of appeal could reasonably arrive at a conclusion different to that
of the trial court. In order to succeed, therefore,
the appellant
must convince this court on proper grounds that he has prospects of
succeed on appeal and that those prospects
are not remote but have
realistic chance of succeeding. More is required to be established
than that there is a mere possibility
of success, that the case is
arguable on appeal or that the case cannot be categorised as
hopeless. There must, in other words,
be a sound, rational basis for
the conclusion that there are prospects of success an appeal’.
See also
Karbochem Sasolburg (A Division of
Sentrachem Ltd) v Krieland and Others
(1999)
20 ILJ 2889 (LC) at 2890B;
Ngcobo
v Tente Casters (Pty) Ltd
(2002)
23 ILJ 1442 (LC) at 1443 para 2 and
Tsotetsi
v Stallion Security (Pty)
Ltd
(2009) 30 ILJ 2802 (LC) at 2804 para 14