Nhlapo and Others v Member of the Executive Council (MEC) and Others (Application for Leave to Appeal) (J 1614/2022) [2023] ZALCJHB 119 (20 April 2023)

Nhlapo and Others v Member of the Executive Council (MEC) and Others (Application for Leave to Appeal) (J 1614/2022) [2023] ZALCJHB 119 (20 April 2023)

The court found that none of the grounds advanced by the applicants established reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The relief granted was appropriate under section 158(1)(h), and the court had jurisdiction to review and set aside the appointment. The factual dispute raised was immaterial, as the applicant's own version supported the finding that the appointment was irregular. The guidelines did not permit appointment under the circumstances, and interests of justice do not constitute a separate ground for leave to appeal under the Superior Courts Act. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 119
Parties
Applicant: Nhlapo Bafana Nicholas; Applicant: Nomalanga Jane Maduna; Applicant: The School Governing Body (SGB) (as represented by the Chairperson); Respondent: Member of the Executive Council (MEC); Respondent: Gauteng Department of Education (GDE); Respondent: Metsing Benjamin Peello
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 April 2023
Case Number
J 1614/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Reviewing and Setting Aside Appointment.
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Review of Administrative Action, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Section 158 1 H, Prospects of Success on Appeal, Principle of Legality
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Administrative Action Jurisdiction of Labour Court Section 158 1 H Prospects of Success on Appeal Principle of Legality

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nhlapo Bafana Nicholas

Applicant

Nomalanga Jane Maduna

Applicant

The School Governing Body (SGB) (as represented by the Chairperson)

Applicant

Member of the Executive Council (MEC)

Respondent

Gauteng Department of Education (GDE)

Respondent

Metsing Benjamin Peello

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Reviewing and Setting Aside Appointment.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the judgment reviewing and setting aside the appointment of the first applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to grant the order reviewing and setting aside the appointment.
  3. 3 Whether the court erred in granting relief in the face of a factual dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that none of the grounds advanced by the applicants established reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The relief granted was appropriate under section 158(1)(h), and the court had jurisdiction to review and set aside the appointment. The factual dispute raised was immaterial, as the applicant's own version supported the finding that the appointment was irregular. The guidelines did not permit appointment under the circumstances, and interests of justice do not constitute a separate ground for leave to appeal under the Superior Courts Act. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.