Bredenkamp v Tshwane University of Technology (JS387/08) [2015] ZALCJHB 321 (20 August 2015)

Bredenkamp v Tshwane University of Technology (JS387/08) [2015] ZALCJHB 321 (20 August 2015)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that another court might reasonably reach a different conclusion regarding the dismissal of the condonation application. The grounds advanced by the applicant did not establish any material error or misdirection in the judgment. The court also held that the supplementary affidavit was not properly before it, as no proper application for its admission was made and the matter had already been decided. Applying the established test for leave to appeal, the court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and dismissed both applications with costs.

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 321
Parties
Applicant: F Bredenkamp; Respondent: Tshwane University of Technology
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 August 2015
Case Number
JS387/08
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Condonation Application
Outcome
Both the application for leave to file a supplementary affidavit and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.
Judges
Shai
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing, Leave to Appeal, Labour Court Rules
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing Leave to Appeal Labour Court Rules

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F Bredenkamp

Applicant

Tshwane University of Technology

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Condonation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment dismissing the applicant's condonation application.
  2. 2 Whether leave to file a supplementary affidavit should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that another court might reasonably reach a different conclusion regarding the dismissal of the condonation application. The grounds advanced by the applicant did not establish any material error or misdirection in the judgment. The court also held that the supplementary affidavit was not properly before it, as no proper application for its admission was made and the matter had already been decided. Applying the established test for leave to appeal, the court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and dismissed both applications with costs.

Court Disposition

Both the application for leave to file a supplementary affidavit and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to file a supplementary affidavit is dismissed with costs.
  • The application for leave to appeal against the whole judgment is dismissed with costs.