Bojosinyane v Ditsobotla Local Municipality and Others (2025/013682) [2025] ZALCJHB 222 (9 June 2025)

30 Reportability
Civil Procedure

Brief Summary

Appeal — Application for leave to appeal — Withdrawal and non-compliance with court rules — First respondent withdrew application for leave to appeal; second and third respondents failed to file written submissions within the prescribed period — Application for leave to appeal by second and third respondents struck off the roll for non-compliance with court rules.




THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA , JOHANNESBURG

Not Reportable
Case No: 2025- 013682
In the matter between:
OLAOTSE THEOPHILUS BOJOSINYANE Applicant

and

DITSOBOTLA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First
Respondent

COUNCILOR MAZWI MORURI N.O. Second Respondent
RASUPANG CLARIUS MOOKETSI N.O. Third Respondent
MEC: COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE, HUMAN
SETTLEMENT AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS, NORTH WEST Fourth
Respondent
Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: 9 June 2025

2


JUDGMENT : APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL


MAKHURA , J
[1] On 5 March 2025, t he Municipality , together with the second and third
respondents, filed an application for leave to appeal . On 6 March 2025, the first
respondent withdrew the application for leave to appeal. On 20 March 2025 , this Court
issued a second judgment in terms of which t he second and third respondents were
ordered to pay the costs of the urgent applicant.
[2] On 3 June 2025, Sifumba Attorneys addressed a letter to this Court in which they
“confirm and maintain” that they act for the first to third respondents and enquired when
they would receive “audience insofar as their application for leave to appeal is
concerned” . There is no record of Sifumba Attorneys placing themselves on record.
From the record of these proceedings uploaded on CaseLines , since the withdrawal of
the application for leave to appeal by the first respondent, no further steps w ere taken
by the second and third respondents to pursue the application.

[3] Accordingly, the second and third respondents have failed to comply with the
rules of this Court in that they have to date failed to file the written submissions within
the prescribed period and the application for leave to appeal insofar as it relates to them
falls to be struck off for non- compliance.
[4] In the premises, the following order is made:
Order :

3
1. It is declared that the first respondent’s application for leave to appeal is
withdrawn.
2. The second and third respondent s’ application for leave to appeal is struck off the
roll for non- compliance with the rules of this Court.

M. Makhura
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa