Lesese v Eskom Holdings Ltd and Another (J1824/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 369 (28 November 2019)

Lesese v Eskom Holdings Ltd and Another (J1824/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 369 (28 November 2019)

The court held that an order striking an application from the roll for lack of urgency is not a final order and therefore not appealable. The applicant's grounds, except for the costs order, are disposed of on this basis. Regarding costs, the Labour Court has a broad discretion under section 162 of the LRA, and appeal courts are generally reluctant to interfere with such discretion. The applicant had previously been warned about filing unmeritorious urgent applications, yet proceeded to file another without grounds for urgency or merit. The costs order, requiring the applicant to pay 50% of the respondent's costs, was found to be fair and appropriate under the circumstances. There is no...

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 369
Parties
Applicant: Morgan Lesese; Respondent: Eskom Holdings Ltd; Respondent: Piet Nkuna
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2019
Case Number
J1824/19
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Urgent Application Struck From Roll
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Discretion, Urgency Striking, Protected Disclosure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Costs Discretion Urgency Striking Protected Disclosure

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morgan Lesese

Applicant

Eskom Holdings Ltd

Respondent

Piet Nkuna

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Urgent Application Struck From Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order striking the urgent application from the roll for lack of urgency is appealable.
  2. 2 Whether the costs order against the applicant is susceptible to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the court exercised its discretion on costs correctly.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that an order striking an application from the roll for lack of urgency is not a final order and therefore not appealable. The applicant's grounds, except for the costs order, are disposed of on this basis. Regarding costs, the Labour Court has a broad discretion under section 162 of the LRA, and appeal courts are generally reluctant to interfere with such discretion. The applicant had previously been warned about filing unmeritorious urgent applications, yet proceeded to file another without grounds for urgency or merit. The costs order, requiring the applicant to pay 50% of the respondent's costs, was found to be fair and appropriate under the circumstances. There is no...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.