Feni v Pan African Language Board and Another (25170/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 729 (17 January 2018)

Feni v Pan African Language Board and Another (25170/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 729 (17 January 2018)

The court found that the applicant's allegations regarding exclusion from the CEO post on account of age were unsupported and insufficient for legal relief. The evidence demonstrated that the second respondent met the job requirements, and there was no legal obligation for a competency assessment. The contract of employment was signed by an authorised representative, and the applicant failed to establish any irregularity. The application for leave to appeal did not meet the threshold of reasonable prospects of success as required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 729
Parties
Applicant: Zixolisile Feni; Respondent: Pan South African Language Board; Respondent: Mpho Reginald Monareng
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 January 2018
Case Number
25170/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment Delivered on 27 June 2017
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Kollapen
Legal Topics
Condonation of Late Filing, Unfair Exclusion From Employment, Competency Assessment, Requirements for Employment, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation of Late Filing Unfair Exclusion From Employment Competency Assessment Requirements for Employment Costs Award

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zixolisile Feni

Applicant

Pan South African Language Board

Respondent

Mpho Reginald Monareng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment Delivered on 27 June 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in granting condonation for the late filing of the respondents' answering affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was unfairly excluded from consideration for the CEO post on account of age.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent met the inherent requirements of the CEO post.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's allegations regarding exclusion from the CEO post on account of age were unsupported and insufficient for legal relief. The evidence demonstrated that the second respondent met the job requirements, and there was no legal obligation for a competency assessment. The contract of employment was signed by an authorised representative, and the applicant failed to establish any irregularity. The application for leave to appeal did not meet the threshold of reasonable prospects of success as required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.