Mhlongo v South African Revenue Service (J1915/09) [2016] ZALCJHB 35 (21 January 2016)

Mhlongo v South African Revenue Service (J1915/09) [2016] ZALCJHB 35 (21 January 2016)

The court granted condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal, finding the delay immaterial given the history of the matter. Leave to appeal was refused regarding the referral to oral evidence and the postponement application, as there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. However, leave to appeal was granted on the issue of the Labour Court's jurisdiction, as there was a reasonable prospect that another court may decide differently. Costs of the application for leave to appeal were ordered to be costs in the appeal.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 35
Parties
Applicant: Charlotte Connie Mhlongo; Respondent: South African Revenue Service
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 January 2016
Case Number
J1915/09
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Applicant's Claim Under S 77(3) and S 77 A(e) of the Bcea.
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused on referral to oral evidence and postponement; granted on jurisdiction. Condonation for late filing granted. Costs to be costs in the appeal.
Judges
L M Malan
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Condonation, Postponement Application, Referral to Oral Evidence
Labour Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Jurisdiction of Labour Court Condonation Postponement Application Referral to Oral Evidence

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

Charlotte Connie Mhlongo

Applicant

South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Applicant's Claim Under S 77(3) and S 77 A(e) of the Bcea.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding the referral to oral evidence and postponement applications.
  3. 3 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding the Labour Court's jurisdiction to determine the matter.

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal, finding the delay immaterial given the history of the matter. Leave to appeal was refused regarding the referral to oral evidence and the postponement application, as there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. However, leave to appeal was granted on the issue of the Labour Court's jurisdiction, as there was a reasonable prospect that another court may decide differently. Costs of the application for leave to appeal were ordered to be costs in the appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused on referral to oral evidence and postponement; granted on jurisdiction. Condonation for late filing granted. Costs to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal against the judgment and orders relating to referral to oral evidence and postponement is dismissed.
  • The application for leave to appeal against the balance of the judgment and order is granted.