Mojapelo v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR817/18) [2022] ZALCJHB 158 (31 May 2022)
The Court found that although the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal was not excessive and the explanation was reasonable, the applicant failed to comply with clause 15.2 of the Practice Manual by not filing submissions within the prescribed period. The applicant's subsequent attempt to file...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] ZALCJHB 158
- Parties
- Applicant: Barnard Pitso Mojapelo; Respondent: South African Local Government Bargaining Council; Respondent: Willem Koekmoer N.O.; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR817/18
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application.
- Outcome
- Condonation application for late filing of the application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- D Mahosi
- Legal Topics
- Condonation for Late Filing, Leave to Appeal, Practice Manual Compliance
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Barnard Pitso Mojapelo
Applicant
South African Local Government Bargaining Council
Respondent
Willem Koekmoer N.O.
Respondent
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application.
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's condonation application for late filing of the application for leave to appeal should be granted.
- 2 Whether the applicant complied with the Practice Manual requirements for filing submissions.
- 3 Whether the absence of submissions and service on the third respondent affects the prospects of success.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that although the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal was not excessive and the explanation was reasonable, the applicant failed to comply with clause 15.2 of the Practice Manual by not filing submissions within the prescribed period. The applicant's subsequent attempt to file submissions was both late and unsupported by an application for condonation for the late filing of submissions. Furthermore, there was no proof that the submissions were served on the third respondent. In the absence of compliance with procedural requirements and no prospects of success, the condonation application was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Condonation application for late filing of the application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The condonation application for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case no: JR 817/18
In the matter between:
BARNARD PITSO MOJAPELO
Applicant
and
SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
BARGAINING COUNCIL
First Respondent
WILLEM KOEKMOER N.O.
Second Respondent
CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Third Respondent
Decided: In Chambers
Delivered: In view of the measures implemented as a result of the Covid-19 outbreak, this judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' representatives through email. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 31 May 2022
JUDGMENT - APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MAHOSI. J
[1] On 10 December 2020, this Court handed down a judgment in terms of which it dismissed the application to review and set aside the arbitration award dated 9 April 2018, issued by the second respondent under the auspices of the South African Local Government Bargaining Council (SALGBC) under case number PMD 0041710 with no order as to costs.
[2] On 26 January 2021, the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal. As this application was filed 15 days out of the prescribed period, the condonation application accompanied the main application. On 28 January 2021, the third respondent filed a notice of intention to oppose.
[3] Although the degree of the delay is not inordinate and the explanation thereof is reasonable, the applicant has no prospect of success in this application. This is so, because the applicant has failed to comply with clause 15.2 of the Practice Manual of this Court[1], which requires him to file his submissions within 10 days of the filing of the application for leave to appeal. The 10-day period for filing expired on 09 February 2021.
[4] In the absence of submissions from the applicant, the third respondent could not file its submissions. The Court addressed a letter to the parties on 17 March 2021, reminding the applicant to file submissions. Despite this, no submissions from the applicant were forthcoming.
[5] It was only on 30 March 2022 when the applicant sent an email that showed that the submissions were emailed to this Court on 28 April 2022. This was not helpful to the applicant in that the submissions were still filed late without any application for condonation for the late filing thereof. In addition, there is no proof that the submissions were served on the third respondent.
[6] In light of the above, the applicant’s condonation application for late filing of the application for leave to appeal stands to be dismissed.
Costs
[7] With regard to costs, I am of the opinion that the requirements of law and fairness dictate that there should be no order as to costs.
[8] Accordingly, I make the following order:
Order
1. The condonation application for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2. There is no order as to costs.
__________________
D. Mahosi
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
[1] Effective April 2013