AMCU obo Monate v Ngobeni NO and Others (JR2425/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 515 (15 December 2016)

AMCU obo Monate v Ngobeni NO and Others (JR2425/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 515 (15 December 2016)

The application for leave to appeal was delivered outside the prescribed 15-day period following the handing down of the ex tempore judgment. The applicant did not apply for condonation for the late filing. In terms of Rule 30(2) and clause 14.5 of the Practice Manual, the time period runs from the date the judgment is handed down, not from the date the transcript is signed. As no condonation was sought and the prescribed time periods have expired, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application for leave to appeal.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 515
Parties
Applicant: AMCU obo MONATE; Respondent: JOSEPH NGOBENI N.O.; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: SASOL MINING (PTY) LTD
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2016
Case Number
JR2425/14
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Jurisdiction, Practice Manual Time Periods
Labour Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Condonation Jurisdiction Practice Manual Time Periods

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AMCU obo MONATE

Applicant

JOSEPH NGOBENI N.O.

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

SASOL MINING (PTY) LTD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal was delivered within the prescribed time period.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant sought condonation for late filing.
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the application for leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was delivered outside the prescribed 15-day period following the handing down of the ex tempore judgment. The applicant did not apply for condonation for the late filing. In terms of Rule 30(2) and clause 14.5 of the Practice Manual, the time period runs from the date the judgment is handed down, not from the date the transcript is signed. As no condonation was sought and the prescribed time periods have expired, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application for leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the third respondent’s costs.