Mahlangu v South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (J 102/2023) [2023] ZALCJHB 238 (4 August 2023)

Mahlangu v South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (J 102/2023) [2023] ZALCJHB 238 (4 August 2023)

The respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Rules and the Practice Manual by not filing written submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal, nor did it seek condonation for such non-compliance. The Practice Manual is binding and its provisions must be adhered to. The absence of submissions leaves the application unmotivated and not properly before the court. Furthermore, the respondent has not established any basis or compelling reason to suggest that there are reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. Applying the stringent test for leave to appeal, the application must fail.

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 238
Parties
Applicant: Solomon Mahlangu; Respondent: South African Transport and Allied Workers Union
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 August 2023
Case Number
J 102/2023
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following an Opposed Urgent Application and Judgment.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Practice Manual Compliance, Reasonable Prospects of Success, Urgent Application
Labour Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Practice Manual Compliance Reasonable Prospects of Success Urgent Application

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solomon Mahlangu

Applicant

South African Transport and Allied Workers Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following an Opposed Urgent Application and Judgment.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal is properly before the court in the absence of submissions as required by the Rules and Practice Manual.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has established reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion.
  3. 3 Whether non-compliance with the Practice Manual and Rules justifies dismissal of the application for leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Rules and the Practice Manual by not filing written submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal, nor did it seek condonation for such non-compliance. The Practice Manual is binding and its provisions must be adhered to. The absence of submissions leaves the application unmotivated and not properly before the court. Furthermore, the respondent has not established any basis or compelling reason to suggest that there are reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. Applying the stringent test for leave to appeal, the application must fail.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.