Lesedi Local Municipality v IMATU obo Members and Others (JR1695/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 12 (24 January 2018)

Lesedi Local Municipality v IMATU obo Members and Others (JR1695/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 12 (24 January 2018)

Although the applicant's conduct in prosecuting the review application was grossly negligent and inexcusable, there remains a possibility that another court may take a more lenient approach regarding the procedural delays and the alleged misdirection by the arbitrator. In light of this, leave to appeal is granted,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 12
Parties
Applicant: Lesedi Local Municipality; Respondent: IMATU obo Members; Respondent: Commissioner M N S Dawson (NO); Respondent: South African Local Government Bargaining Council
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 January 2018
Case Number
JR1695/16
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Collective Agreement Interpretation, Review Application Delay
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Collective Agreement Interpretation Review Application Delay

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lesedi Local Municipality

Applicant

IMATU obo Members

Respondent

Commissioner M N S Dawson (NO)

Respondent

South African Local Government Bargaining Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator misdirected himself by treating the dispute as an unfair labour practice rather than an interpretation and application of a collective agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's non-compliance with time frames for prosecuting the review application should be excused.
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted despite the applicant's negligent conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant's conduct in prosecuting the review application was grossly negligent and inexcusable, there remains a possibility that another court may take a more lenient approach regarding the procedural delays and the alleged misdirection by the arbitrator. In light of this, leave to appeal is granted, albeit with reluctance, to allow another court to consider whether the review application should be entertained.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against the judgment handed down on 7 September 2017 is granted.
  • Costs shall be costs in the appeal.