Law Reports
Kgoale v Thaba Chweu Local Municipality and Others …

Kgoale v Thaba Chweu Local Municipality and Others (JR19/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 148 (3 April 2025)

35 Reportability

Labour Law

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Application for leave to appeal — Non-compliance with procedural rules — Applicant's failure to prove service of application as required by Rule 67(4) and Rule 9(2) — Court exercising discretion to re-enroll application in the interest of justice — Application for leave to appeal granted. The applicant sought re-enrollment of an application for leave to appeal after it was struck from the roll for non-compliance with procedural rules regarding service. The applicant contended that he had served the necessary documents but failed to provide adequate proof of service as required by the rules. The legal issue was whether the court could exercise its discretion to re-enroll the application despite the procedural shortcomings. The court decided to re-enroll the application and granted the application for leave to appeal, emphasizing the interest of justice.

Full Judgment Text (Click to expand)

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA , JOHANNESBURG

Not Reportable
Case No: JR19/22

In the matter between:
THOKA MAKORWANE PATRICK KGOALE Applicant
and

THABA CHWEU LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First Respondent

COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION Second Respondent

LETSEMA MOKOENA N.O. Third Respondent

Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: 3 April 2025

JUDGMENT :
RE-ENROLMENT & APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO A PPEAL

2

MAKHURA, J
[1] On 20 March 2025, this Court handed down a judgment and order in terms of
which the application for leave to appeal was struck from the roll for non- compliance
with Rule 67(5) of the Rules Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings of the Labour
Court
1. The applicant has now filed an affidavit seeking the re- enrolment of the
application for leave to appeal and the determination thereof.
[2] Rule 67( 4) requires the application, and by implication any subsequent process,
to be “served” with the secretary to the judge from whom leave to appeal is sought or any judge’s secretary in the seat where the matter was heard. The applicant contends
that he served the submissions on the judge’s secretary in terms of rule 9(1) (a)(iv) of
the rules of this Court. However, he failed to prove service in terms of rule 9(2) (a) and
(b) of the rules because there was no affidavit of service making the necessary
averments in terms of rule 9(2)( b). Paragraph 12 of his affidavit does not take the matter
any further as the deponent attended the court to “ file” the submissions, which must not
be misconstrued with service.
[3] Despite the above, I have decided to exercise my discretion to re-enroll the
application and determine it in the interest of justice. Having considered the grounds in
the application, I have decided to grant the application for leave to appeal.

[4] In the premises, the following order is made:
Order
1. The application for leave to appeal is re -enrolled.

1 GN 4775a in GG 50608 of 3 May 2024.
3
2. The application for leave to appeal is grant ed.

M. Makhura
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa

Back to Law Reports