Nkatingi v Road Agency Limpopo (SOC) Ltd (J793/20) [2021] ZALCJHB 30 (4 March 2021)

Nkatingi v Road Agency Limpopo (SOC) Ltd (J793/20) [2021] ZALCJHB 30 (4 March 2021)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success on appeal against the cost order. The urgency was manufactured by the applicant's conduct, specifically by giving the respondent only 24 hours' notice before approaching the court, without adequate explanation for not acting sooner. The reasons for the cost order were fully addressed in the original judgment, and no new grounds were raised. There were no compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal, and the statutory requirements for leave to appeal were not met.

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 30
Parties
Applicant: Jabu Herman Nkatingi; Respondent: Road Agency Limpopo (SOC) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 March 2021
Case Number
J793/20
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against a Cost Order Following an Urgent Application Struck From the Roll.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Coetzee
Legal Topics
Costs in Labour Court, Urgency in Labour Disputes, Leave to Appeal, Disciplinary Hearing Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Costs in Labour Court Urgency in Labour Disputes Leave to Appeal Disciplinary Hearing Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jabu Herman Nkatingi

Applicant

Road Agency Limpopo (SOC) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against a Cost Order Following an Urgent Application Struck From the Roll.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal against the cost order.
  2. 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the cost order was justified in the circumstances of the urgent application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success on appeal against the cost order. The urgency was manufactured by the applicant's conduct, specifically by giving the respondent only 24 hours' notice before approaching the court, without adequate explanation for not acting sooner. The reasons for the cost order were fully addressed in the original judgment, and no new grounds were raised. There were no compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal, and the statutory requirements for leave to appeal were not met.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.