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 328
|
|
National Education Health and Allied Workers Union obo Mogorosi v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1436/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 328 (18 September 2018)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not
Reportable
Case
no: JR 1436/15
In
the matter between:
NATIONAL
EDUCATION HEALTH AND
ALLIED
WORKERS UNION o.b.o MICHAEL
MOGOROSI
Applicant
and
COMMISSION
FOR CONCILIATION
MEDIATION
AND
ARBITRATION
First
Respondent
COMMISSIONER
WILLEM KOEKEMOER
N.O.
Second
Respondent
ROAD
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
Third
Respondent
Decided
in Chambers
Delivered:
18 September 2018
JUDGMENT
– APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
TLHOTLHALEMAJE,
J:
[1]
The applicants’ application to review and set aside the
arbitration award issued by the second respondent was dismissed
in a
judgment delivered on 18 April 2018.
[2]
NEHAWU appears to be no longer pursuing the matter. Mogorosi has
since on his own launched an application for leave to appeal
against
the whole judgment and order. That application was filed with the
Court on 17 July 2018. The application for
leave to appeal
was filed outside the time frames stipulated in the provisions of
Rule 30(2) of the Rules of this Court. It is
accordingly eight weeks
out of time.
[3]
Mogorosi filed what appeared to be an application for condonation for
the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
The third
respondent had promptly filed a notice to oppose the application. It
also was also pointed out to Mogorosi that he had
not complied with
this Court’s Practice Manual as he had not filed his
submissions in accordance with Rule 30(3A) of the
Rules of this
Court.
[4]
Notwithstanding the above omissions, the third respondent had upon
the directive issued by this Court, filed its opposing submissions.
There are obvious difficulties with Mogorosi’s application. The
first is that other than filing and serving his notice of
application
for leave to appeal, he had not filed his submissions in accordance
with Directive 15 of the Practice Manual. This
was despite the third
respondent’s objections which went unheeded.
[5]
A further difficulty is that what purports to be an application for
condonation is not in compliance with the provisions of
Rule 7 of the
Rules of this Court. That ‘application’ is in the form of
submissions as the third respondent had correctly
pointed out, and is
contained in his notice of application for leave to appeal. Mogorosi
appears to be represented by BC Edwards
from Daan Mostert Attorneys.
Even then, there is nothing in the file to indicate that they are
appointed as Mogorosi’s attorneys
of record.
[6]
To the extent that Mogorosi appears to be legally represented in
launching this application, practitioners in this Court are
expected
to be familiar with its Rules and Practice Manual. Mogorosi was made
aware of the defects in his application by the third
respondent. He
had failed to address those defects despite requests to do so. I
therefore fail to appreciate why this Court should
even consider this
application, when no attempt was made to comply with its Rules.
[7]
Accordingly, the following order is made;
Order:
1. The application for leave to appeal
the judgment and order of this court delivered on 18 April 2018
is dismissed.
2. There is no order as to costs.
____________________
E Tlhotlhalemaje
Judge
of the Labour Court of South Africa