Mhlongo v Amajuba District Municipality and Another (Application for Leave to Appeal) (D788/2021) [2022] ZALCD 52 (23 December 2022)

Mhlongo v Amajuba District Municipality and Another (Application for Leave to Appeal) (D788/2021) [2022] ZALCD 52 (23 December 2022)

The court found that the respondents failed to meet the higher threshold for leave to appeal established by section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. There was no sound, rational basis to conclude that there was a reasonable prospect of success on appeal, nor any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The applicant's request for costs was denied as no specific grounds were advanced and it is not the Labour Court's principle that costs automatically follow the result. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Citation
[2022] ZALCD 52
Parties
Applicant: Zakhele Mhlongo; Respondent: Amajuba District Municipality; Respondent: Her Worship the Mayor: Cllr V.V. Bam
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 December 2022
Case Number
D788/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 15 August 2022.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; each party to bear its own costs.
Judges
Allen-Yaman
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Award, Superior Courts Act Section 17
Civil Procedure Labour Law Leave to Appeal Costs Award Superior Courts Act Section 17

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zakhele Mhlongo

Applicant

Amajuba District Municipality

Respondent

Her Worship the Mayor: Cllr V.V. Bam

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 15 August 2022.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents have met the threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013.
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded against the unsuccessful applicants for leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents failed to meet the higher threshold for leave to appeal established by section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. There was no sound, rational basis to conclude that there was a reasonable prospect of success on appeal, nor any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The applicant's request for costs was denied as no specific grounds were advanced and it is not the Labour Court's principle that costs automatically follow the result. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents’ application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • Each party is to bear its own costs of the application.