Phosa v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (J14/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 121 (11 March 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZALCJHB 121
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- M Makhura
- Case number
- J14/22
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- M Makhura
- Case number
- J14/22
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The respondent filed the application for leave to appeal within the prescribed period, but failed to serve the application in accordance with Rule 67(4) and did not file supporting submissions within the 10-day period as required by Rule 67(5). The non-compliance with these procedural requirements is fatal to the application. The rules are clear and mandatory, and failure to comply results in the application being struck from the roll.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal struck from the roll for non-compliance with Rule 67 of the Labour Court rules.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is struck from the roll for non-compliance with Rule 67 of the Labour Court rules.
02
Material facts
Parties
Mandisa Phosa
ApplicantEkurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Damages Awarded in Original Judgment: ZAR 22,551,279.92
03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application for leave to appeal was filed and served in compliance with Rule 67 of the Labour Court rules.
- 02
Whether the defendant filed supporting submissions within the prescribed period.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant did not file submissions as the application for leave to appeal was procedurally defective due to non-compliance with the Labour Court rules.
- Respondent
- The respondent filed the application for leave to appeal within the prescribed period but failed to serve it in accordance with Rule 67(4) and did not file supporting submissions within the required timeframe.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 67(3), Labour Court Rules
An application for leave to appeal must be filed within 15 days after the date of judgment, excluding certain days as defined by the rules.
- 02
Rule 67(4), Labour Court Rules
The application must be served on the secretary to the judge from whom leave to appeal is sought or on the secretary of any other judge in the seat where the matter was heard.
- 03
Rule 67(5), Labour Court Rules
Submissions in support of the application must be filed within 10 days of filing the application, and opposing submissions within 5 days thereafter.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The respondent filed the application for leave to appeal within the prescribed period, but failed to serve the application in accordance with Rule 67(4) and did not file supporting submissions within the 10-day period as required by Rule 67(5). The non-compliance with these procedural requirements is fatal to the application. The rules are clear and mandatory, and failure to comply results in the application being struck from the roll.
Obiter and limits
- Strict compliance with procedural rules is essential to ensure the efficient administration of justice in the Labour Court.
- Parties must be vigilant in observing time limits and service requirements to avoid unnecessary delays and adverse outcomes.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal struck from the roll for non-compliance with Rule 67 of the Labour Court rules.
- The application for leave to appeal is struck from the roll for non-compliance with Rule 67 of the Labour Court rules.
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
Not Reportable
Case No. J14/22
In the matter between:
MANDISA
PHOSA
Plaintiff
and
EKURHULENI
METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
Defendant
Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: 11 March 2025
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MAKHURA, J
[1] On 28 November 2024, this Court handed down judgment in terms of which the plaintiff’s dismissal was found to be automatically
unfair and ordered the defendant to pay her R2 2551 279.92. On 20 December 2024, the defendant filed an application for leave to appeal against the whole of this judgment and order.
[2] Applications for leave to appeal are brought in terms of rule 67 of the Rules Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings of the Labour Court. Rule 67(3) provides that the application for leave to appeal must be made within 15 days after the date of judgment.
[3] As indicated, the judgment was handed down on 28 November 2024. A day is defined as any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, public holiday or any day within 16 December and 15 January, both days inclusive.[1] The application was filed on 20 December 2024, and was therefore filed within the 15 days’ period.
[4] There is however no proof that the application was served in accordance with Rule 67(4), which requires service on the secretary to the judge from whom leave to appeal is sought or on the secretary of any other judge in the seat where the matter was heard.
[5] Rule 67(5) provides that:
‘Within 10 days of the filing of the application for leave to appeal, the party seeking leave may file submissions in support of the application, and any party opposing the application for leave to appeal may file its opposing submissions within 5 days thereafter.’
[6] Having filed the application for leave to appeal on 20 December 2024, the 10-day period to file the submissions commenced on 16 January 2025 and expired on 30 January 2025. It is now more than 5 weeks since the expiry of the period, and no submissions have been filed by the defendant.
[7] Accordingly, the defendant has failed to comply with rule 67(3) and (4) of the rules of this Court. The application falls to be struck from the roll for non-compliance.
[8] In the premises, the following order is made:
Order
1. The application for leave to appeal is struck from the roll for non-compliance with Rule 67 of the Labour Court rules.
M. Makhura
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
[1] Rule 1.
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.