Kobe and Another v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J1003/17) [2021] ZALCJHB 294 (22 September 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] ZALCJHB 294
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Tlhotlhalemaje
- Case number
- J1003/17
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Tlhotlhalemaje
- Case number
- J1003/17
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicants failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for an application for leave to appeal, specifically the filing of written submissions within 10 days of the notice. As a result, the application was not properly before the court. The court held that non-compliance with these rules is fatal to the application and dismissed it accordingly. No order as to costs was made.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Orders
- The First and Second Applicants’ application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Junius Kobe
ApplicantMalose Peter Mogodi
ApplicantCommission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
RespondentMashigo Michael Lati N.O.
RespondentMogalakwena Platinum Mine
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicants' application for leave to appeal is properly before the court.
- 02
Whether non-compliance with the Labour Court Rules and Practice Manual warrants dismissal of the application for leave to appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants sought leave to appeal against the judgment dismissing their application to revive and reinstate the review application. They filed the notice of leave to appeal but did not submit written submissions within the prescribed period.
- Respondent
- The respondents argued that the applicants failed to comply with rule 30(3A) of the Labour Court Rules and paragraph 15.2 of the Practice Manual, as no written submissions were filed within 10 days of the notice. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal is not properly before the court and should be dismissed.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 30(3A) of the Labour Court Rules; Practice Manual, paragraph 15.2
An application for leave to appeal must comply with the procedural requirements set out in the Labour Court Rules and Practice Manual, including the timely filing of written submissions.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for an application for leave to appeal, specifically the filing of written submissions within 10 days of the notice. As a result, the application was not properly before the court. The court held that non-compliance with these rules is fatal to the application and dismissed it accordingly. No order as to costs was made.
Obiter and limits
- Strict compliance with court rules and practice manuals is essential to the proper administration of justice.
- Failure to adhere to prescribed timeframes may result in dismissal of applications without consideration of their merits.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- The First and Second Applicants’ application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Ruling
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
J 1003/17
In the matter between:
JUNIUS KOBE First
Applicant
MALOSE PETER MOGODI Second
Applicant
and
COMMISSION FOR
CONCILIATION
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION First
Respondent
MASHIGO MICHAEL LATI N.O. Second
Respondent
MOGALAKWENA PLATINUM MINE Third
Respondent
Decided in Chambers:
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal representatives by email and publication on the Labour Court’s website. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 22 September 2021 at 14:00
JUDGMENT: LEAVE TO
APPEAL
TLHOTLHALEMAJE, J
[1] On 4 April 2021, this Court delivered judgment wherein the first and second applicants’ application to revive and reinstate the review application was dismissed with no order as to costs. The applicants have since filed an application for leave to appeal against the whole judgment and order.
[2] The applicants filed the application for leave to appeal on or about 22 April 2021. In terms of rule 30(3A) of the Rules of this Court read with paragraph 15.2 of the Practice Manual, the applicants ought to have filed written submissions in support of the application for leave to appeal within 10 days from filing of the Notice of leave to appeal. Since 22 April 2021, these provisions have not been complied with, and as a consequence of that non-compliance, the purported application for leave to appeal is not properly before the Court, and ought to be therefore dismissed.
[3] Accordingly, the following order is made;
Order:
1. The First and Second Applicants’ application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2. There is no order as to costs.
Edwin Tlhotlhalemaje
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.