CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY v Morgan (JA 89/2013) [2015] ZALAC 80 (16 July 2015)

CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY v Morgan (JA 89/2013) [2015] ZALAC 80 (16 July 2015)

The Court held that the appellant's attorneys failed to follow the correct procedure under the Labour Appeal Court Rules. The Rules require that an application for extension of time to file the record must be made before the prescribed period expires. Once the appeal is deemed withdrawn, the Judge President cannot extend the time frame. The attorneys should have brought an application to reinstate the appeal rather than seeking an extension after the period had lapsed. Both the appellant's and respondent's legal representatives failed to properly interpret the Rules and consult relevant case law. Consequently, the previous costs order de bonis propriis was set aside and replaced with an...

Citation
[2015] ZALAC 80
Parties
Appellant: CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY FREE STATE; Respondent: NICHOLAS ISMAEL MORGAN
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 July 2015
Case Number
JA 89/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Review of Costs Order Following Appeal Deemed Withdrawn
Outcome
Order of 10 March 2015 set aside; matter struck from the roll with costs to stand over for determination at the appeal hearing.
Judges
Waglay JP, Davis JA, Mngqibisa-Thusi AJA
Legal Topics
Appeal Procedure, Reinstatement of Appeal, Costs Orders, Labour Court Rules
Civil Procedure Labour Law Appeal Procedure Reinstatement of Appeal Costs Orders 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY FREE STATE

Appellant

NICHOLAS ISMAEL MORGAN

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Review of Costs Order Following Appeal Deemed Withdrawn

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's attorneys followed the correct procedure under the Labour Appeal Court Rules after failing to file the appeal record timeously.
  2. 2 Whether an application for extension of time to file the record can be made after the appeal is deemed withdrawn.
  3. 3 Whether the costs order against the appellant's attorneys de bonis propriis should be reviewed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the appellant's attorneys failed to follow the correct procedure under the Labour Appeal Court Rules. The Rules require that an application for extension of time to file the record must be made before the prescribed period expires. Once the appeal is deemed withdrawn, the Judge President cannot extend the time frame. The attorneys should have brought an application to reinstate the appeal rather than seeking an extension after the period had lapsed. Both the appellant's and respondent's legal representatives failed to properly interpret the Rules and consult relevant case law. Consequently, the previous costs order de bonis propriis was set aside and replaced with an...

Court Disposition

Order of 10 March 2015 set aside; matter struck from the roll with costs to stand over for determination at the appeal hearing.

Orders

  • The matter is struck from the roll.
  • Costs to stand over for determination at the appeal hearing.