Mofu v Nala Local Municipality (5224/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 199 (27 June 2025)

Mofu v Nala Local Municipality (5224/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 199 (27 June 2025)

The court found that the applicant failed to allege or prove authority to act on behalf of the other applicants, as required by established legal principles and rule 7 of the Uniform Rules of Court. The absence of confirmatory affidavits and proper identification of the other applicants rendered the application defective. The Municipality's version that no deductions were made, but rather that employees were not paid for days not worked, was accepted. Applying the test under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, the court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2025] ZAFSHC 199
Parties
Applicant: Nobelungu Mofu; Respondent: Nala Local Municipality
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2025
Case Number
5224/2024
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Initial Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Grobler AJ
Legal Topics
Authority to Act, Deductions From Remuneration, Rule 7 Uniform Rules, Confirmatory Affidavits, Reasonable Prospect of Success
Labour Law Civil Procedure Authority to Act Deductions From Remuneration Rule 7 Uniform Rules Confirmatory Affidavits Reasonable Prospect of Success

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nobelungu Mofu

Applicant

Nala Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Initial Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant had authority to act on behalf of other applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the deductions from salaries constituted unlawful deductions under section 34 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act were met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to allege or prove authority to act on behalf of the other applicants, as required by established legal principles and rule 7 of the Uniform Rules of Court. The absence of confirmatory affidavits and proper identification of the other applicants rendered the application defective. The Municipality's version that no deductions were made, but rather that employees were not paid for days not worked, was accepted. Applying the test under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, the court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.