Majavu v Lesedi Local Municipality (J990/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 259 (4 July 2017)

Majavu v Lesedi Local Municipality (J990/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 259 (4 July 2017)

The applicant failed to comply with the Practice Manual by not filing written submissions in support of the application for leave to appeal, despite being directed to do so. This non-compliance alone justifies dismissal of the application. Furthermore, the applicant provided no grounds to challenge the court's discretion in awarding costs. The court's discretion in costs matters is not lightly interfered with on appeal, and no case was made out that the discretion was improperly exercised. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 259
Parties
Applicant: Sandi Majavu; Respondent: Lesedi Local Municipality; Respondent: Isaac Rampedi N.O; Respondent: The Speaker: Lesedi Local Municipal Council
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 July 2017
Case Number
J990/17
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order, Considered in Chambers.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
S Snyman
Legal Topics
Practice Manual Compliance, Leave to Appeal, Costs Award Discretion
Labour Law Practice Manual Compliance Leave to Appeal Costs Award Discretion

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandi Majavu

Applicant

Lesedi Local Municipality

Respondent

Isaac Rampedi N.O

Respondent

The Speaker: Lesedi Local Municipal Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order, Considered in Chambers.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant made out a proper case for leave to appeal against the costs order.
  2. 2 Whether non-compliance with the Practice Manual warrants dismissal of the application for leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the discretion exercised by the court in awarding costs was assailable.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to comply with the Practice Manual by not filing written submissions in support of the application for leave to appeal, despite being directed to do so. This non-compliance alone justifies dismissal of the application. Furthermore, the applicant provided no grounds to challenge the court's discretion in awarding costs. The court's discretion in costs matters is not lightly interfered with on appeal, and no case was made out that the discretion was improperly exercised. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.