Bojosinyane v Ditsobotla Local Municipality and Others (2025/013682) [2025] ZALCJHB 222 (9 June 2025)
The court found that the first respondent had formally withdrawn its application for leave to appeal.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...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] ZALCJHB 222
- Parties
- Applicant: Olaotse Theophilus Bojosinyane; Respondent: Ditsobotla Local Municipality; Respondent: Councilor Mazwi Moruri N.O.; Respondent: Rasupang Clarius Mooketsi N.O.; Respondent: MEC: Cooperative Governance, Human Settlement and Traditional Affairs, North West
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 9 June 2025
- Case Number
- 2025/013682
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- The first respondent's application for leave to appeal is withdrawn.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.
- Judges
- M Makhura
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal Procedure, Withdrawal of Application, Non Compliance With Court Rules
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Olaotse Theophilus Bojosinyane
Applicant
Ditsobotla Local Municipality
Respondent
Councilor Mazwi Moruri N.O.
Respondent
Rasupang Clarius Mooketsi N.O.
Respondent
MEC: Cooperative Governance, Human Settlement and Traditional Affairs, North West
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the first respondent's application for leave to appeal remains before the court.
- 2 Whether the second and third respondents have complied with the rules regarding written submissions for leave to appeal.
- 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal by the second and third respondents should be struck off for non-compliance.
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The court found that the first respondent had formally withdrawn its application for leave to appeal.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.
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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
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