Bojosinyane v Ditsobotla Local Municipality and Others (2025/013682) [2025] ZALCJHB 222 (9 June 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZALCJHB 222
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- M Makhura
- Case number
- 2025/013682
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- M Makhura
- Case number
- 2025/013682
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the first respondent had formally withdrawn its application for leave to appeal. The second and third respondents failed to comply with the Labour Court Rules by not filing written submissions within the prescribed period and taking no further steps to pursue their application. As a result, the application for leave to appeal by the second and third respondents was struck off the roll for non-compliance.
Court disposition
The first respondent's application for leave to appeal is withdrawn. The second and third respondents' application for leave to appeal is struck off the roll for non-compliance with the rules of court.
Orders
- It is declared that the first respondent’s application for leave to appeal is withdrawn.
- The second and third respondents’ application for leave to appeal is struck off the roll for non-compliance with the rules of this Court.
02
Material facts
Parties
Olaotse Theophilus Bojosinyane
ApplicantDitsobotla Local Municipality
RespondentCouncilor Mazwi Moruri N.O.
RespondentRasupang Clarius Mooketsi N.O.
RespondentMEC: Cooperative Governance, Human Settlement and Traditional Affairs, North West
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the first respondent's application for leave to appeal remains before the court.
- 02
Whether the second and third respondents have complied with the rules regarding written submissions for leave to appeal.
- 03
Whether the application for leave to appeal by the second and third respondents should be struck off for non-compliance.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant did not file submissions in this leave to appeal application, as the matter concerns procedural compliance by the respondents.
- Respondent
- The first respondent withdrew its application for leave to appeal. The second and third respondents, represented by Sifumba Attorneys, failed to file written submissions within the prescribed period and took no further steps to pursue the application after the withdrawal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Court Rules
An application for leave to appeal must comply with the rules of court, including the timely filing of written submissions.
- 02
Labour Court Rules
Failure to comply with procedural requirements may result in the application being struck off the roll.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the first respondent had formally withdrawn its application for leave to appeal. The second and third respondents failed to comply with the Labour Court Rules by not filing written submissions within the prescribed period and taking no further steps to pursue their application. As a result, the application for leave to appeal by the second and third respondents was struck off the roll for non-compliance.
Obiter and limits
- Legal representatives must ensure that they are properly placed on record before the court.
- Strict compliance with procedural rules is required in applications for leave to appeal.
Court disposition
The first respondent's application for leave to appeal is withdrawn. The second and third respondents' application for leave to appeal is struck off the roll for non-compliance with the rules of court.
- It is declared that the first respondent’s application for leave to appeal is withdrawn.
- The second and third respondents’ application for leave to appeal is struck off the roll for non-compliance with the rules of this Court.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Order
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
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MAKHURA, J
[1] On 5 March 2025, the 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 the 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 were 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:
1. It is declared that the first respondent’s application for leave to appeal is withdrawn.
2. The second and third respondents’ 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
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.