Mafoka and Others v HFR Schaefer Vervoer (Pty) and Others (JR2570/19) [2023] ZALCJHB 203 (6 July 2023)

Mafoka and Others v HFR Schaefer Vervoer (Pty) and Others (JR2570/19) [2023] ZALCJHB 203 (6 July 2023)

The application for leave to appeal was not properly before the court due to late filing of written submissions without an application for condonation, as required by the Practice Manual. Despite this, the court exercised its discretion to consider the application in light of the Labour Relations Act's objective of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 203
Parties
Applicant: Relebogile Christopher Mafoka and 24 Others; Respondent: HFR Schaefer Vervoer (Pty); Respondent: National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight and Logistics Industry; Respondent: Stephens Shema Molapo N.O.
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 July 2023
Case Number
JR2570/19
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 2 November 2022.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
O Mamabolo
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospect of Success, Condonation, Practice Manual, Expeditious Resolution
Labour Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospect of Success Condonation Practice Manual Expeditious Resolution

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Relebogile Christopher Mafoka and 24 Others

Applicant

HFR Schaefer Vervoer (Pty)

Respondent

National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight and Logistics Industry

Respondent

Stephens Shema Molapo N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 2 November 2022.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal is properly before the court given late filing of written submissions without condonation.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success as required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  3. 3 Whether there is any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard despite procedural defects.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was not properly before the court due to late filing of written submissions without an application for condonation, as required by the Practice Manual. Despite this, the court exercised its discretion to consider the application in light of the Labour Relations Act's objective of resolving disputes expeditiously. Applying the stringent test under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, the court found that the Appellant/First Respondent failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. There was no compelling reason for the appeal to be heard, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The Appellant/First Respondent’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.