Harold v Lucy and Others (J222/24) [2024] ZALCJHB 520 (5 June 2024)

Harold v Lucy and Others (J222/24) [2024] ZALCJHB 520 (5 June 2024)

The applicant failed to satisfy the legal test for recusal, as he did not provide substantial grounds for a reasonable apprehension of bias. The mere fact that the judge had previously ruled against the applicant does not constitute bias. The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to determine claims for criminal offences or damages under COIDA. The application was not urgent and was procedurally defective. Accordingly, the recusal application was dismissed and the main application was struck off the roll for lack of jurisdiction.

Citation
[2024] ZALCJHB 520
Parties
Applicant: Ligege Ndifelani Harold; Respondent: Moyane Lucy; Respondent: Sibiya Nomvula Gladness; Respondent: Commissioner of the Compensation Fund; Respondent: Thulas Nxesi
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 June 2024
Case Number
J222/24
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application Struck Off Roll; Recusal Application Dismissed
Outcome
Recusal application dismissed; main application struck off the roll for lack of jurisdiction.
Judges
M T M Phehane
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judge, Jurisdiction, Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, Urgent Application
Labour Law Civil Procedure Recusal of Judge Jurisdiction Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act Urgent 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ligege Ndifelani Harold

Applicant

Moyane Lucy

Respondent

Sibiya Nomvula Gladness

Respondent

Commissioner of the Compensation Fund

Respondent

Thulas Nxesi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application Struck Off Roll; Recusal Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presiding judge should recuse himself due to alleged bias.
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate claims under the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act.
  3. 3 Whether the application is urgent and properly before the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to satisfy the legal test for recusal, as he did not provide substantial grounds for a reasonable apprehension of bias. The mere fact that the judge had previously ruled against the applicant does not constitute bias. The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to determine claims for criminal offences or damages under COIDA. The application was not urgent and was procedurally defective. Accordingly, the recusal application was dismissed and the main application was struck off the roll for lack of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Recusal application dismissed; main application struck off the roll for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The applicant’s recusal application is dismissed.
  • The application is struck off the roll for lack of jurisdiction.