Mokoena v Member of the Executive Council for Education: Gauteng and Another (J1539/18) [2021] ZALCJHB 292 (22 September 2021)

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

Not Reportable

J 1539/18

In the matter between:

NOMTHANDAZO LORRAINE MOKOENA Applicant

and

MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

FOR EDUCATION: GAUTENG First

Respondent

HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION: GAUTENG Second

Respondent

Decided in Chambers:

Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal representatives by email and publication on the Labour Court’s website. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 22 September 2021 at 14:00

JUDGMENT: LEAVE TO APPEAL

TLHOTLHALEMAJE, J

[1] On 1 March 2021, this Court delivered a judgment and order in terms of which the applicant’s application to condone the late filing of the review application was dismissed. The applicants’ application to review and set aside the decision of the first respondent to refuse her reinstatement pursuant to the deemed termination of her employment in terms of the provisions of section 14(1) of the Employment of Educators Act[1] was also dismissed.

[2] The applicant has since filed an application for leave to appeal against the whole judgment and order of the Court. The applicant filed her application on or about 23 March 2021. In terms of rule 30(3A) of the Rules of this Court read with paragraph 15.2 of the Practice Manual of this Court, the applicant ought to have thereafter filed her written submission in support of the application for leave to appeal on or before 9 April 2021. This would have triggered the respondents to file their written submissions in opposing, if any, within five days from the date of the filing of the applicant’s written submissions.

[3] In the absence of compliance with the provisions of rule 30(3A) of the Rules of this Court read with paragraph 15.2 of the Practice Manual of this Court, the purported application for leave to appeal is not properly before the Court.

[4] Even if the Court was inclined to consider what is before it to the extent that the applicant sought leave to appeal, central to the applicant’s complaints is that on the whole, Court’s assessment of the factual matrix of the case was erroneous, and that the Court misdirected itself in various respects.

[5] Having had regard to the grounds upon which leave to appeal is sought, and further having reflected on the judgment and order of this Court, it ought to be found that the applicant has not set out a basis or any compelling reasons upon which it can be concluded that there are reasonable prospects that the appeal would succeed. It therefore follows that the application should fail.

[6] Accordingly, the following order is made;

Order:

1. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

2. There is no order as to costs.

Edwin Tlhotlhalemaje

Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa

[1] Act 76 of 1998