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 262
|
|
Masebe v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR877/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 262 (15 August 2018)
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case no: JR877/16
In the matter between:
MATSOBANE
MASEBE
Applicant
and
THE
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION MEDIATION
First
Respondent
BONGANI
KHUMALO
N.O
Second
Respondent
RAND
WATER
Third
Respondent
Considered:
In chambers
Delivered:
15 August 2018
JUDGEMENT: LEAVE TO
APPEAL
NKUTHA-NKONTWANA.
J
[1]
This is an unopposed application for leave
to appeal brought by the applicant against the whole judgment and
order handed down by
this Court on 22 June 2018 where I dismissed his
application for condonation.
[2]
The application for leave to appeal filed
does not comply with Rule 30 3(A) of this Court’s Rules, read
with Clause 15.2 Practice
Manual. In essence, the leave to appeal is
defective.
[3]
Taking into account that the Applicant in
this case has always had legal representation, including counsel, he
ought to have been
better advised. It is worth mentioning that
applicant sought to blamed his legal representatives, particularly
erstwhile counsel,
Advocate Pashwane, for the late prosecution of the
review application. However, another counsel was sought on the basis
that he
was conversant with labour law.
[4]
Accordingly,
the blatant disregard of the Rules of this Court is inexcusable. As
appositely stated in
Saloojee
& Another NNO v Minister of Community Development:
[1]
‘
The
attorney, after all, is the representative whom the litigant has
chosen for himself, and there is little reason why, in regard
to
condonation of a failure to comply with a Rule of Court, the litigant
should be absolved from the normal consequences of such
a
relationship, no matter what the circumstances of the failure are’
[5]
Notwithstanding,
I am convinced
that
there are no reasonable prospects that another court might come to a
different conclusion.
[2]
The
applicant
is just clatching at straws.
[6]
In the circumstances, I make the following order:
Order
1.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
__________________
P. Nkutha-Nkontwana
Judge of the Labour Court
of South Africa
[1]
1965 (2) SA 135 (A).
[2]
Oasys
Innovations (Pty) Ltd t/a GL Event Oasys v Henning and Another
[2015] ZALCCT 65 at paras 9 to 12.