Msiza and Another v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR1263/12) [2017] ZALCJHB 99 (24 March 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZALCJHB 99
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Mthombeni
- Case number
- JR1263/12
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Mthombeni
- Case number
- JR1263/12
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that although the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal was not excessive and condonation could be considered, the applicants failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 30(3A) and Clause 15.2 of the Practice Manual by not filing the required submissions. Furthermore, the court determined that there were no prospects of success on appeal. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed for non-compliance and lack of merit.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed for non-compliance with procedural rules and lack of prospects of success.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Msiza, Jan Charly
ApplicantSkosana, Boy Mgiji
ApplicantSouth African Local Government Bargaining Council
RespondentCommissioner Thomas Ntimbana
RespondentThembisile Hani Municipality
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Review Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether condonation for late filing of the application for leave to appeal should be granted.
- 02
Whether the application for leave to appeal complies with Rule 30(3A) and Clause 15.2 of the Practice Manual.
- 03
Whether there are prospects of success on appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants sought condonation for the late filing of their application for leave to appeal, arguing that the delay was not excessive and that their application should be considered on its merits. They did not file the required submissions in terms of Rule 30(3A) and Clause 15.2 of the Practice Manual.
- Respondent
- The application for leave to appeal was unopposed. No submissions were filed by the respondents.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Court Practice Manual, Clause 15.2
An application for leave to appeal must comply with Rule 30(3A) and Clause 15.2 of the Practice Manual, which require the filing of submissions within specified timeframes.
- 02
Labour Court Rules, Rule 30(3A)
Condonation for late filing may be granted if the delay is not excessive and there are prospects of success.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that although the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal was not excessive and condonation could be considered, the applicants failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 30(3A) and Clause 15.2 of the Practice Manual by not filing the required submissions. Furthermore, the court determined that there were no prospects of success on appeal. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed for non-compliance and lack of merit.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that compliance with procedural rules is essential for the proper administration of justice.
- The absence of opposition does not relieve applicants of their obligation to comply with the Practice Manual and court rules.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed for non-compliance with procedural rules and lack of prospects of success.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
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
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
Case no: JR 1263/12
In the matter between:
MSIZA,
JAN
CHARLY
First Applicant
SKOSANA,
BOY
MGIJI
Second Applicant
and
SOUTH
AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
First Respondent
BARGAINING
COUNCIL
COMMISSIONER
THOMAS NTIMBANA
Second Respondent
THEMBISILE
HANI MUNICIPALITY
Third Respondent
Date: 22 November 2016
Decided in Chambers: 24 March 2017
JUDGMENT
IN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MTHOMBENI AJ
[1] Judgment in the application for the review of the arbitration award made by the second respondent was handed down on 22 April 2015 against the applicants.
[2] The application for leave to appeal was delivered approximately a month late, but the applicants made an application for condonation of the late filing of the application for leave to appeal. The application is unopposed.
[3] In my opinion, while the delay is not excessive, there are no prospects of succeeding if I were to grant leave to appeal.
[4] This notwithstanding, the application for leave to appeal falls to be unsuccessful for want of compliance with the Rule 30 (3A).
[5] Subsequent to the delivery of the application for leave to appeal, the applicants have failed to deliver submissions as contemplated in Clause 15.2 of the Practice Manual which states:
“Within 10 days of the filing of the application for leave to appeal, the party seeking leave to appeal must file submissions in terms of Rule 30(3A) and the party opposing the leave to appeal must file its submissions five days thereafter. An application for leave to appeal will be decided by the judge in Chambers on the basis of the submissions filed in terms of Rule 30(3A), unless the judge directs that the application be heard in open court”.
[6] In the circumstances, I make the following order:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
________
Acting Judge of the Labour 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.