Leeto v Ditsobotla Local Municipality and Another (J2308/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 172 (9 May 2016)

Leeto v Ditsobotla Local Municipality and Another (J2308/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 172 (9 May 2016)

The applicant disputed the authority of the respondents' attorneys within the time prescribed by Rule 7 of the Uniform Rules of High Court. The respondents' attorneys failed to deliver any power of attorney or other proof of authority to act on behalf of the first respondent. In the absence of such proof, the only...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 172
Parties
Applicant: Dintwe Jeremiah Leeto; Respondent: Ditsobotla Local Municipality; Respondent: SS Nnete (Acting Municipal Manager)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 May 2016
Case Number
J2308/15
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Declaring Suspension Invalid.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal struck off the roll with no order as to costs.
Judges
Nkutha-Nkontwana
Legal Topics
Authority of Attorney, Rule 7 Uniform Rules, Mandate Challenge, Leave to Appeal Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Authority of Attorney Rule 7 Uniform Rules Mandate Challenge Leave to Appeal Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dintwe Jeremiah Leeto

Applicant

Ditsobotla Local Municipality

Respondent

SS Nnete (Acting Municipal Manager)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Declaring Suspension Invalid.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' attorneys had authority to act on behalf of the first respondent in launching the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents complied with Rule 7 of the Uniform Rules of High Court when their authority was challenged.
  3. 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal could proceed in the absence of proof of mandate.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant disputed the authority of the respondents' attorneys within the time prescribed by Rule 7 of the Uniform Rules of High Court. The respondents' attorneys failed to deliver any power of attorney or other proof of authority to act on behalf of the first respondent. In the absence of such proof, the only reasonable inference is that the attorneys were not duly mandated. Furthermore, the attorneys failed to prosecute the application for leave to appeal in respect of the second respondent, as no written submissions were filed. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was not properly before the court and was struck off the roll.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal struck off the roll with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is struck off the roll.
  • No order as to costs.