Boxing South Africa v Qithi (JR95/19) [2022] ZALCJHB 311 (11 November 2022)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different decision regarding the review application. The delay in prosecuting the review was inordinate and prejudicial, particularly to the respondent, who remains unemployed. The principles of expeditious...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] ZALCJHB 311
- Parties
- Applicant: Boxing South Africa; Respondent: Moffat Qithi
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR95/19
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
- Judges
- P Nkutha-Nkontwana
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Review Application Delay, Expeditious Resolution, Costs Order
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Boxing South Africa
Applicant
Moffat Qithi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different decision on the review application.
- 2 Whether the delay in prosecuting the review application justifies dismissal of the application.
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different decision regarding the review application. The delay in prosecuting the review was inordinate and prejudicial, particularly to the respondent, who remains unemployed. The principles of expeditious dispute resolution under the Labour Relations Act and the need to prevent labour litigation from becoming protracted and costly were decisive. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused, and no costs order was made against the applicant.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case no: JR95/19
In the matter between:
BOXING SOUTH AFRICA
Applicant
And
MOFFAT QITHI
Respondent
Decided: In chambers
Delivered: 11 November 2022
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal representatives by email, publication on the Labour
Court’s website and released to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10h00 on 11 November 2022.
LEAVE TO APPEAL – JUDGMENT
NKUTHA-NKONTWANA, J
Introduction
[1] This is an opposed leave to appeal wherein the applicant seeks leave to appeal the whole judgment and order of this Court handed down on 30 August 2022. Leave is sought to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court (LAC) on two main grounds that are enunciated in its notice of the application for leave to appeal.
[2] The application for leave to appeal stands on two legs. Firstly, they submit that I erred in dismissing the review application by granting the Rule 11 application brought by the applicant. Secondly, that I erred in dismissing the respondent review application on grounds of inordinate delay.
[3] The issues canvased in this application are addressed in detail in the main judgment, I defer to the reasons therein. Nonetheless, I need to address the applicant’s misconception that once the extension to file the record is granted, the review application ceases to be urgent.
[4] In Macsteel Trading Wadeville v Van der Merwe NO and others[1] (Macsteel), the LAC, referring with approval to the decision of the Constitutional Court in Toyota SA Motors (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and others[2], stated that:
‘A primary object of the Act is to promote the effective resolution of labour disputes, integral to which is the speedy resolution of disputes. As stated by the Constitutional Court in Toyota:
“Any delay in the resolution of labour disputes undermines the primary object of the LRA. It is detrimental not only to the workers who may be without a source of income pending the resolution of the dispute but ultimately, also to the employer who may have to reinstate workers after many years.”’ [Footnotes omitted]
[5] The applicant is obviously indifferent when it comes to the effect of the delay in the prosecution of the review application. Seven years have passed since the time when Mr Qithi was dismissed and this matter is yet to be finalised. Mr Qithi, the vulnerable party, is still unemployed and held hostage by the party who had approached this court on an unmeritorious review application.
[6] It is accepted that a party seeking leave to appeal must show that there is a reasonable prospect that the factual context could receive a different treatment or that there is a legitimate dispute on the law. However, in labour matters another consideration, which is pivotal, is the imperative in terms of the Labour Relations Act[3] for the expeditious resolution of labour disputes, a principle well-articulated by the LAC, as per Davis JA, in Martin & East (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Mineworkers and others[4]. These sentiments were recently echoed by the Constitutional Court in Booi v Amathole District Municipality and others[5] it was stated that “...the intention behind this choice was to prevent labour dispute-resolution procedures from becoming costly and time-consuming and, thereby, inadvertently favouring the party that wields greater resources and power. It was a pragmatic decision that serves the ends of justice and protects the rights enshrined in s 23 of the Constitution”.[6]
[7] Accordingly, I am not persuaded that there is a reasonable prospect that the factual matrix in this case might receive a different treatment at the appeal. Put differently, the applicant has failed to make out a case that another court might reasonably arrive at a decision different to the one reached by this Court. Yet, I am not inclined to award costs against the applicant.
[8] In the circumstances, the leave to appeal application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
P Nkutha-Nkontwana
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
[1] (2019) 40 ILJ 798 (LAC) at para [20].
[2] [2016] 3 BLLR 217 (CC).
[3] Act 66 of 1995, as amended.
[4] (2014) 35 ILJ 2399 (LAC).
[5] (2022) 43 ILJ 91 (CC).
[6] Id at para [51].