Mazingi v Department of Health - Eastern Cape (East London Hospital Complex) and Others (P559/07) [2011] ZALCPE 11 (21 October 2011)
The court found that there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the refusal of condonation for the late filing of the review application. The grounds advanced by the applicant did not demonstrate any error in the previous judgment, nor did they establish that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] ZALCPE 11
- Parties
- Applicant: Mxolisi Eric Mazingi; Respondent: Department of Health – Eastern Cape (East London Hospital Complex); Respondent: Public Health and Social Development Bargaining Council (PHSDSBC); Respondent: L Bono NO
- Court
- Labour Court Port Elizabeth
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- P559/07
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Condonation
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- Judges
- Molahlehi
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Late Filing, Review Application
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mxolisi Eric Mazingi
Applicant
Department of Health – Eastern Cape (East London Hospital Complex)
Respondent
Public Health and Social Development Bargaining Council (PHSDSBC)
Respondent
L Bono NO
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Condonation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there is a reasonable possibility that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding the refusal of condonation for late filing of the review application.
- 2 Whether the applicant was denied assistance or an opportunity to obtain legal representation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the refusal of condonation for the late filing of the review application. The grounds advanced by the applicant did not demonstrate any error in the previous judgment, nor did they establish that the applicant was denied assistance or an opportunity to obtain legal representation. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Orders
- The applicant's application for leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
MXOLISI ERIC MAZINGI V DEPT OF HEALTH & OTHERS CASE NUMBER P559-07. LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSAL TO GRANT CONDONATION. Molahlehi J
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD IN PORT ELIZABETH
CASE NO: P559/07
In the matter between:
MXOLISI ERIC MAZINGI …..........................................................................APPLICANT
and
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH –EASTERN CAPE
(EAST LONDON HOSPITAL COMPLEX) …....................................1ST RESPONDENT
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
BARGAINING COUNCIL (PHSDSBC) ….........................................2ND RESPONDENT
L BONO NO ….......................................................................................3RD Respondent
Considered in chambers
Date of judgement : 21 October 2011
JUDGMENT
Molahlehi J
Introduction
This is an application in terms of which the applicant seeks leave to appeal against the decision of this court which was made on 13 July 2011 in terms of which the applicant’s application condonation for the late filing of the applicant’s review application was refused.
The generally accepted test to apply in dealing with an application for leave to appeal is that of a reasonable possibility that another Court might come to a different conclusion than the one reached by the Court a quo. This test has been applied in various decisions of this Court and other Courts of this country. See Dince v Department of Education, North West Province [2010] 6 BLLR 631 (LC) and Shell SA Energy (Pty) Ltd v NBCCI & others [2010] JOL 25841 (LC) and Momentum Group Ltd v Maritz [2006] JOL 17615 (T).
Thus in the present matter what the court must consider is the question of a reasonable possibility that another Court may come to a different conclusion to the one reached in the order of dismissing the applicant’s application for condonation.
I do not deem it necessary for the purpose of this judgement to repeat each and every ground for leave to appeal stated by the applicant in his application. I have had the opportunity to consider the submissions made by the applicant and the judgment made by this court earlier and have come to the conclusion that there are no prospects that another court is likely to come to a conclusion different to the one reached by this court in dismissing the applicant’s application for condonation. I also do not find any merit in the complaint of the applicant that this court did not assist him or afforded him an opportunity to find legal representation.
In the premises the applicant’s application for leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances
The matter was considered in chambers.
1