Myers v National Commissioner of South African Police Service (CA 01/2021) [2023] ZALAC 3; (2023) 44 ILJ 1024 (LAC); [2023] 4 BLLR 296 (LAC) (2 February 2023)

Myers v National Commissioner of South African Police Service (CA 01/2021) [2023] ZALAC 3; (2023) 44 ILJ 1024 (LAC); [2023] 4 BLLR 296 (LAC) (2 February 2023)

The Labour Appeal Court held that it has no specific rule equivalent to Uniform Rule 42(1) for varying its own judgments or orders, but retains a strictly confined inherent power under common law to correct clerical or patent errors that do not alter the substance of its judgment. The alleged error regarding the granting of leave to appeal was not reflected in the operative order and did not affect the costs order, which had already included costs of the application for leave to appeal as 'costs in the appeal.' The date of absorption into the upgraded post was deliberately determined by the Court as 1 May 2017, based on its reasoning in the main judgment, and was not a patent error...

Citation
[2023] ZALAC 3
Parties
Applicant: Ivan Myers; Respondent: National Commissioner of South African Police Service; Respondent: Provincial Commissioner of Western Cape
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 February 2023
Case Number
CA 01/2021
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Vary Judgment/order Under Rule 42(1) UR and Section 174(b) LRA
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Coppin JA, Savage AJJA, Tokota AJJA
Legal Topics
Variation of Judgment, Unfair Labour Practice, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Costs Order, Functus Officio
Labour Law Civil Procedure Variation of Judgment Unfair Labour Practice Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Costs Order Functus Officio

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivan Myers

Applicant

National Commissioner of South African Police Service

Respondent

Provincial Commissioner of Western Cape

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Vary Judgment/order Under Rule 42(1) UR and Section 174(b) LRA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Appeal Court may vary its own judgment or order in the absence of a specific rule equivalent to Uniform Rule 42(1).
  2. 2 Whether the errors alleged by Mr Myers in the judgment and order are patent errors or omissions justifying variation.
  3. 3 Whether the date of absorption and costs order in the main judgment were erroneous and subject to correction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that it has no specific rule equivalent to Uniform Rule 42(1) for varying its own judgments or orders, but retains a strictly confined inherent power under common law to correct clerical or patent errors that do not alter the substance of its judgment. The alleged error regarding the granting of leave to appeal was not reflected in the operative order and did not affect the costs order, which had already included costs of the application for leave to appeal as 'costs in the appeal.' The date of absorption into the upgraded post was deliberately determined by the Court as 1 May 2017, based on its reasoning in the main judgment, and was not a patent error...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The last sentence of paragraph [1] and paragraph [34] of the judgment in the appeal is corrected to read: 'Leave to appeal to this Court was granted on petition.'
  • The application is dismissed with costs.