Motebu v Sylvania Metals (JS617/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 182 (20 February 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZALCJHB 182
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Van Niekerk
- Case number
- JS617/16
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Van Niekerk
- Case number
- JS617/16
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the applicant's application for leave to appeal was filed out of time and without an application for condonation, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite. The court was entitled, and indeed obliged, to consider the jurisdictional point regarding late referral. The applicant had been afforded an opportunity to apply for condonation but failed to do so. There was no merit in the grounds for leave to appeal, and the application was dismissed. The court exercised its discretion under section 162 of the Labour Relations Act to award costs against the applicant, finding that the requirements of law and fairness justified such an order.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
James Motebu
ApplicantSylvania Metals
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Condonation
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant is entitled to leave to appeal against the judgment refusing condonation for late referral.
- 02
Whether the court erred in raising and considering the jurisdictional point regarding late referral.
- 03
Whether the application for leave to appeal, itself filed out of time, should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
- 04
Whether costs should be awarded against the applicant.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that the court erred in raising and considering the jurisdictional point regarding the late referral of his dispute. He submits that the order was made without his consent and challenges the dismissal of his application for review.
- Respondent
- The respondent argues that the applicant's application for leave to appeal is without merit, as it was filed out of time and without an application for condonation. The respondent submits that the court was entitled, if not obliged, to consider the jurisdictional point and that the application is egregious, warranting a costs order against the applicant.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Relations Act, s 162
A court must have jurisdiction to hear a matter; hearing a matter without jurisdiction infringes the rule of law.
- 02
Motebu v Sylvania Metals (JS617/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 182
An application filed out of time without condonation should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the applicant's application for leave to appeal was filed out of time and without an application for condonation, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite. The court was entitled, and indeed obliged, to consider the jurisdictional point regarding late referral. The applicant had been afforded an opportunity to apply for condonation but failed to do so. There was no merit in the grounds for leave to appeal, and the application was dismissed. The court exercised its discretion under section 162 of the Labour Relations Act to award costs against the applicant, finding that the requirements of law and fairness justified such an order.
Obiter and limits
- The applicant's failure to object to the postponement and opportunity to apply for condonation undermines his contention that the order was made without his consent.
- The application for leave to appeal is considered egregious in the circumstances.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Ruling
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
case no: JS 617/16
In the matter between:
JAMES
MOTEBU
APPLICANT
and
SYLVANIA
METALS
RESPONDENT
Date of ruling: 20 February 2016 (In Chambers)
RULING:
LEAVE TO APPEAL
VAN
NIEKERK J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment delivered by this court on 7 November 2016. In the order, I afforded the applicant an opportunity to file an application to condone the late referral of his dispute to this court within 7 days, failing which the referral would be dismissed.
[2] The purpose of the order was to afford the applicant, who had filed his application for review out of time, an opportunity to apply for condonation. Strictly, the court was entitled to dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction. The court was entitled, if not obliged, to have regard to the jurisdictional point since to hear the matter without the requisite jurisdiction would amount to an infringement of the rule of law. There is thus no merit in the applicant’s contention that the court erred in raising and considering this point. To the extent that the applicant submits that the order was made without his consent, the reality that confronted the applicant was to agree to the postponement and avail himself of an opportunity to file an application for condonation, or to have the application dismissed. The raised no objection to the matter being postponed so as to enable him to explain late referral of his dispute.
[3] The present application was itself filed out of time without any application for condonation. On that basis, strictly, the application
should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. However, having regard to the relevant test, there is no merit whatsoever in the application for leave to appeal; indeed, I concur with the respondent’s submission that the application is nothing less than egregious. In my view, and in the light of the broad discretion conferred on the court by s 162, the requirements of the law and fairness dictate that the applicant should be liable for the costs of the application.
For the above reasons, make the following order:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs
ANDRÉ VAN NIEKERK
JUDGE
OF THE LABOURT COURT
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.