Masebe v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR877/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 262 (15 August 2018)
The application for leave to appeal was defective as it did not comply with Rule 30 3(A) of the Labour Court Rules and Clause 15.2 of the Practice Manual. The applicant, who had legal representation throughout, failed to provide a valid excuse for non-compliance, as the court held that a litigant is bound by the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] ZALCJHB 262
- Parties
- Applicant: Matsobane Masebe; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Bongani Khumalo N.O; Respondent: Rand Water
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR877/16
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Condonation Application
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- Judges
- Nkutha-Nkontwana
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Non Compliance With Rules, Legal Representative Negligence
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Matsobane Masebe
Applicant
Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration
Respondent
Bongani Khumalo N.O
Respondent
Rand Water
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Condonation Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal complies with the Labour Court Rules and Practice Manual.
- 2 Whether the applicant's failure to comply with the rules can be excused due to alleged negligence of legal representatives.
- 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court might reach a different conclusion.
Ratio Decidendi
The application for leave to appeal was defective as it did not comply with Rule 30 3(A) of the Labour Court Rules and Clause 15.2 of the Practice Manual. The applicant, who had legal representation throughout, failed to provide a valid excuse for non-compliance, as the court held that a litigant is bound by the conduct of their legal representative. The court found no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the dismissal of the condonation application. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case no: JR877/16
In the matter between:
MATSOBANE MASEBE Applicant
and
THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION MEDIATION First Respondent
BONGANI KHUMALO N.O Second Respondent
RAND WATER Third Respondent
Considered: In chambers
Delivered: 15 August 2018
JUDGEMENT: LEAVE TO APPEAL
NKUTHA-NKONTWANA. J
[1] This is an unopposed application for leave to appeal brought by the applicant against the whole judgment and order handed down by this Court on 22 June 2018 where I dismissed his application for condonation.
[2] The application for leave to appeal filed does not comply with Rule 30 3(A) of this Court’s Rules, read with Clause 15.2 Practice Manual. In essence, the leave to appeal is defective.
[3] Taking into account that the Applicant in this case has always had legal representation, including counsel, he ought to have been better advised. It is worth mentioning that applicant sought to blamed his legal representatives, particularly erstwhile counsel, Advocate Pashwane, for the late prosecution of the review application. However, another counsel was sought on the basis that he was conversant with labour law.
[4] Accordingly, the blatant disregard of the Rules of this Court is inexcusable. As appositely stated in Saloojee & Another NNO v Minister of Community Development:[1]
‘The attorney, after all, is the representative whom the litigant has chosen for himself, and there is little reason why, in regard to condonation of a failure to comply with a Rule of Court, the litigant should be absolved from the normal consequences of such a relationship, no matter what the circumstances of the failure are’
[5] Notwithstanding, I am convinced that there are no reasonable prospects that another court might come to a different conclusion.[2] The applicant is just clatching at straws.
[6] In the circumstances, I make the following order:
Order
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
__________________
P. Nkutha-Nkontwana
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
[1] 1965 (2) SA 135 (A).
[2] Oasys Innovations (Pty) Ltd t/a GL Event Oasys v Henning and Another [2015] ZALCCT 65 at paras 9 to 12.