Mtini v Kagiso Khulani Supervision Food Services (J1401/97) [2001] ZALC 129 (20 August 2001)

35 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Appeal — Leave to appeal — Applicant seeking leave to appeal against decision of Labour Court — Court finding no jurisdiction to overturn previous judgment — Applicant's conduct deemed vexatious — Leave to appeal refused with costs awarded to respondent on attorney and own client scale.

Sneller Verbatim/IL
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: J1401/97
2001-08-20
In the matter between
A MTINI Applicant
and
KAGISO KHULANI SUPERVISION
FOOD SERVICES Respondent
________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________________________________________________
REVELAS J:
1.In this matter the applicant has asked for leave to appeal against a decision that I gave on
23 March 2001. I have nothing to add to the reasoning in that judgment, save to
state the following:
2.In his application for leave to appeal the applicant does not make submissions as to why I
have jurisdiction, to overturn the judgment of GROGAN AJ dated 2 December 1998,
seeing that I am not a Court of Appeal. In response thereto the applicant suggested
that I should just accept the submissions of the respondent like I “did the previous
time”, and decide the matter.
3.I then pointed out to him that he could have taken the decision of the Commissioner who
did not find in his favour on review, and has not done so.
4.I was told by the applicant, that I tried to confuse him and that the matter is in the Labour
Court now, and would not address me further on the issue.
5.JAMMY AJ has on a previous occasion expressed some form of censure against the

applicant for the comments he has made about judges of this Court throughout the
proceedings, which Jammy AJ termed as "possibly defamatory."
6.The applicant has brought one defective application after another. He has also stated that
this matter “would not go away”.
7.The applicant's approach to this litigation, (which the respondent had to defend), is
vexatious in the extreme.
8.In the circumstances leave to appeal is refused and the applicant is to pay the
respondent’s costs on an attorney and own client scale.
9.It is necessary to point out to the applicant that in the event of him wishing to proceed
with the matter, the correct forum would be the Labour Appeal Court from which he
must seek leave to appeal on petition.
_________________
E. Revelas