IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
Case no: JS222/02
In the matter between:
THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND 1st APPLICANT
SECURITY
NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF SAPS 2nd APPLICANT
and
JHA COETZER & 11 OTHERS RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________
Landman J:
I. The Minister of Safety and Security and the Commissioner of the South
African Police Services apply for leave to appeal against the whole of my judgment
which was handed down on 29 November 2002.
1. The application is 28 days late. The applicants have applied for
condonation of the late application. The respondents, Inspector Coetzer and 10 others,
oppose the application for condonation and the application for leave to appeal.
1. The applicants have explained why the application is late. The absence of
the senior management of the SAPS during the December festive season, the
unavailability of counsel, the need to be prudent with public moneys and other factors
incline me to grant the application should I find that the applicants have reasonable
prospects of success.
1. The applicants set out, in their notice motion, the grounds upon which
they rely for leave to appeal. This part of the notice reads:
“ Geliewe verder kennis te neem dat die aansoek om verlof op app èl sal berus op die
volgende gronde
1. Dat die Agbare Hof gefouteer het deur te bevind dat die applikante nie gelet het
nie op die effektiwiteit van die Springstofeenheid van die Suid Afrikaanse Polisiediens (die
Springstofeenheid) by die advertensie van die poste vir die persone van die aangewese groep.
2. Dat die Agbare Hof gefouteer het deur te bevind dat die applikante slegs
op ‘n grond van verteenwoordiging (representivity) geweier het om die
Respondente te bevorder en dat die Applikante geen aandag gegee aan
die effektiwiteit van die Springstofeenheid nie.
3. Dat die Agbare Hof gefouteer het deur te bevind dat genoegsame
pogings aangewend is deur die Springstof eenheid om die persone van
die aangewese groep te werf om by die Springstofeenheid aan te sluit.
4. Dat die Agbare Hof gefouteer het deur te bevind dat enige diskriminasie
teen die respondente in die omstandighede onbillik was.”
1. The test for leave to appeal is well known. An applicant for leave to
appeal must show that there is a reasonable prospect that another court would come to
a different conclusion. Clearly this prospect must, in the view of Rule 30 of the Rules of
the Labour Court, relate to the grounds for leave to appeal upon which an applicant
relies.
1. The applicants’ four grounds relate to factual findings which I have made.
It is perfectly permissible to appeal against findings of fact. I have carefully considered
whether there is a reasonable prospect that a court of appeal would decide these issues
differently. I am satisfied that there is no such prospect.
1. The applicants do not rely upon any error of law. Some submissions were
made orally during the application, at my prompting, about the application of the
Employment Equity Act of 1998 and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of
1996. No application was made, at yesterday’s hearing, to broaden the grounds set out
in the notice. It is not permissible for me to decide the application on any basis other
than the grounds upon which the applicants rely. The result is that I am precluded, by
the applicants’ grounds for leave to appeal, from sending a matter of undoubted public
importance for consideration by a higher court.
1. In the result the application for condonation, and with it the application for
leave to appeal, fails and is dismissed with costs.
SIGNED AND DATED AT BRAAMFONTEIN THIS 7 TH DAY OF MARCH 2003
A A Landman
Judge of the Labour Court