Minister of Water and Sanitation v Maseko and Others (JR448/17B) [2021] ZALCJHB 67 (31 May 2021)
The court found that the Applicant's attorneys had acted in a grossly negligent manner by failing to prosecute the review in accordance with Labour Court rules, despite repeated warnings and opportunities to correct their conduct. The case law cited by the Applicant confirmed that gross negligence is a proper basis...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] ZALCJHB 67
- Parties
- Applicant: Minister of Water and Sanitation; Respondent: Olipa Maseko; Respondent: NEHAWU; Respondent: Thomas Ntimbana N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR448/17B
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Costs Order
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed; costs order de bonis propriis confirmed.
- Judges
- S.B. Hardie
- Legal Topics
- Costs De Bonis Propriis, Gross Negligence, Leave to Appeal, Labour Court Rules
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Minister of Water and Sanitation
Applicant
Olipa Maseko
Respondent
NEHAWU
Respondent
Thomas Ntimbana N.O.
Respondent
Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Costs Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Applicant's attorneys acted with gross negligence warranting a costs order de bonis propriis.
- 2 Whether another court would reasonably reach a different conclusion regarding the costs order.
- 3 Whether there was any basis for granting leave to appeal against the costs order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Applicant's attorneys had acted in a grossly negligent manner by failing to prosecute the review in accordance with Labour Court rules, despite repeated warnings and opportunities to correct their conduct. The case law cited by the Applicant confirmed that gross negligence is a proper basis for a costs order de bonis propriis. The court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion or interfere with the judgment and order. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the Applicant's attorneys were ordered to pay the costs of the application de bonis propriis.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; costs order de bonis propriis confirmed.
Orders
- The Application for Leave to Appeal is dismissed.
- The Applicant’s attorneys are to bear the costs of the Application de bonis propriis.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
The Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg
Not Reportable
case no: JR448/17B
In the matter between:
MINISTER OF WATER AND SANITATION
Applicant
and
OLIPA MASEKO
First Respondent
NEHAWU
Second Respondent
THOMAS NTIMBANA N.O.
Third Respondent
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION
Fourth Respondent
Heard: Considered in Chambers
Delivered: 31 May 2021
Judgment- application for leave to appeal
HARDIE, AJ
[1] The Applicant’s written submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal were served and filed on 3 March 2020. It was not opposed. The Applicant’s heads of argument were filed on 30 March 2021. Quite why it has taken a year for this Application for Leave to Appeal to be prosecuted, is not clear to me.
[2] The Application for Leave to Appeal is only in respect of my judgement and order made on 14 February 2020, that the Applicant’s attorneys are to pay the First and Second Respondents’ legal costs de bonis propriis.
[3] I have read the Applicant’s grounds of appeal and factual and legal submissions advanced in support thereof. They do not take the matter any further. In fact, the case law quoted in relation to costs de bonis propriis is not in the Applicant’s favour. They all confirm that grossly negligence conduct on the part of attorneys is an appropriate ground to make such an adverse costs order. Nor does it help to seek to blame Counsel for this comedy of errors. The Applicant’s attorneys are obliged to familiarize themselves with the Labour Court rules and have acted in a grossly negligent manner in not prosecuting the review in accordance with them, despite also having been alerted to the correct procedures for doing so on numerous occasions at the pre- trial conference, they still did not do so.
[4] I am therefore of the view that another Court will not reasonably come to a different conclusion, and interfere in any way with this Court’s judgment and order that the Applicant’s attorneys pay the First and Second Respondent’s costs de bonis propriis.
[6] There was no basis for this application for leave to appeal to brought, and costs de bonis propriis should also follow the result of it.
[7] I therefore make the following order:
1. The Application for Leave to Appeal is dismissed;
2. The Applicant’s attorneys are to bear the costs of the Application de bonis propriis.
_______________________
S.B. Hardie
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa