Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Murray and Others (JR722/2017) [2021] ZALCJHB 402 (27 October 2021)

Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Murray and Others (JR722/2017) [2021] ZALCJHB 402 (27 October 2021)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide good reason for the delays in filing the reconstructed record and supplementary affidavit. The review application was deemed withdrawn due to non-compliance with the Practice Manual and Rule 7A. The reinstatement application was necessary, contrary to the applicant's assertion, because the review had lapsed and been archived. The grounds of appeal did not demonstrate that another court would reach a different conclusion on the same facts. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 402
Parties
Applicant: Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Lodewyk Murray; Respondent: Commissioner Thandiwe Tshayana; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 October 2021
Case Number
JR722/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Reinstatement Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal is dismissed.
Judges
M T M Phehane
Legal Topics
Review Application, Practice Manual Compliance, Leave to Appeal, Reinstatement of Application
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review Application Practice Manual Compliance Leave to Appeal Reinstatement of Application

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

Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Lodewyk Murray

Respondent

Commissioner Thandiwe Tshayana

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided good cause for the delay in prosecuting the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the reinstatement application was necessary under the Practice Manual.
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted given the facts and procedural history.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide good reason for the delays in filing the reconstructed record and supplementary affidavit. The review application was deemed withdrawn due to non-compliance with the Practice Manual and Rule 7A. The reinstatement application was necessary, contrary to the applicant's assertion, because the review had lapsed and been archived. The grounds of appeal did not demonstrate that another court would reach a different conclusion on the same facts. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.