Phoshoko v Chairperson of the CCMA Governing Body and Others (6029/2019) [2023] ZALMPPHC 31 (14 June 2023)
The court found that its rescission order was not final in effect, did not determine the rights of any party, and did not dispose of a substantial portion of the relief claimed. The order merely allowed the litigation process to resume and did not address the merits of the main application. As such, the order was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] ZALMPPHC 31
- Parties
- Applicant: Llala Peter Phoshoko; Respondent: Chairperson of the CCMA Governing Body; Respondent: CCMA Governing Body; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA); Respondent: National Director of the CCMA
- Court
- Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 6029/2019
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Rescission of Judgment
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- MG Mashaba
- Legal Topics
- Rescission of Judgment, Appealability of Orders, Interlocutory Orders
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Llala Peter Phoshoko
Applicant
Chairperson of the CCMA Governing Body
Respondent
CCMA Governing Body
Respondent
Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA)
Respondent
National Director of the CCMA
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Rescission of Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the rescission order granted by the court is appealable.
- 2 Whether the rescission order is final in effect, definitive of the rights of the parties, or disposes of a substantial portion of the relief claimed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that its rescission order was not final in effect, did not determine the rights of any party, and did not dispose of a substantial portion of the relief claimed. The order merely allowed the litigation process to resume and did not address the merits of the main application. As such, the order was interlocutory and not appealable. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE)
CASE NO: 6029/2019
REPORTABLE: YES/NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
REVISED
DATE:14/06/2023
In the matter between:
LLALA PETER PHOSHOKO APPLICANT And CHAIRPERSON OF THE CCMA GOVERNING BODY FIRST RESPONDENT THE CCMA GOVERNING BODY SECOND RESPONDENT COMMISSION FOR CONCILLIATION, MEDIATION THIRD RESPONDENT AND ARBITRATION (CCMA) NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE CCMA FOURTH RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
MASHABA AJ
[1] The Applicant in this matter applied for leave to appeal my judgment after I had rescinded the judgment of the Honourable Justice Semenya granted on 20 May 2021. The Respondents had brought the recission application in terms of Rule 42 (1) (a) and (b) of the Uniform Rules of Court (“the rules”).
[2] The Applicant noted numerous grounds for leave to appeal. I do not find it necessary to labour into detail every ground that the Applicant has made in his application for leave to appeal, his heads of argument and during submissions.
[3] The preliminary issue raised by Counsel for the Respondents which is fundamental in this leave to appeal application was whether my rescission order was appealable. The order is not appealable if it is (a) not final in effect and is open to alteration by the court below; (b) not definitive of the rights of the parties; and (c) does not have the effect of disposing of a substantial portion of the relief claimed.[1]
[4] It is evidently clear that my rescission order is not final. What my order simply did was to allow the litigation process in this matter back for hearing. My order did not dwell into the merits or demerits of the main application. The parties will, during the hearing of the main application, have a right to present their respective cases. My recission judgment does not preclude any of the parties to this application to present their cases in any way whatsoever. The merits of the case in the main application must still be decided upon by the Court which will be vested with this matter in the future. My rescission order was simply interlocutory to the main application.
[5] My rescission order was not definitive of the rights of any of the parties. Neither did it have the effect of disposing of a substantial portion of the relief claimed. I therefore find that my recission order is not appealable. As a result of my finding on this preliminary issue I do not deem it necessary to address the other grounds raised by the applicant in his application for leave to appeal.
[6] In the circumstances the following order is made:
(a) The leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
MG Mashaba
Acting Judge of the High Court
Limpopo Division, Polokwane
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE APPLICANT: IN PERSON peter.phoshoko@vodamail.co.za llala.phoshoko@gmail.com FOR THE RESPONDENTS: ADVOCATE RB MPHELA INSTRUCTED BY: DIALE MOGASHOA ATTORNEYS, PRETORIA C/O: PMK TLADI ATTORNEYS, POLOKWANE donald@dm-inc.co.za itumeleng@dm-inc.co.za DATE HEARD: 06/12/23 DATE DELIVERED: 06/14/23
[1] Crockery Gladstone Farm v Rainbow Farms (Pty) Ltd (592/18) [2019] ZASCA 61 (20 May 2019), Zweni v The Minister of Law and Order 1993 (1) SA 523 (A), SA Informal Traders Forum v City of Johannesburg 2014 (4) SA 971 (CC), Roelitta CC trading as RVR Consulting and Another v National Youth Development Agency and Others [2018] JOL 39763 (GJ).