Ramadiba v Limpopo Legislature and Others (J2568/10) [2015] ZALCJHB 101 (18 March 2015)

Ramadiba v Limpopo Legislature and Others (J2568/10) [2015] ZALCJHB 101 (18 March 2015)

Although the grounds for leave to appeal did not inherently persuade the court, the unusual and novel history of the case justified the possibility that another court might reach a different conclusion. Therefore, leave to appeal was granted. The interlocutory application to strike out was considered withdrawn due to the applicant's failure to file supporting heads of argument, and the costs of both the main and interlocutory applications were ordered to be costs in the appeal.

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 101
Parties
Applicant: Ramadiba, Motlatso Angelina; Respondent: Limpopo Legislature; Respondent: Maake, Josias Sello (N.O.); Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Ngobeni, Eva (N.O.)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 2015
Case Number
J2568/10
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal against the judgment of 14 December 2014 is granted. Costs of the application and the interlocutory application to strike out are to be costs in the appeal.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Practice Directive Compliance, Costs of Interlocutory Applications
Labour Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Practice Directive Compliance Costs of Interlocutory Applications

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramadiba, Motlatso Angelina

Applicant

Limpopo Legislature

Respondent

Maake, Josias Sello (N.O.)

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Ngobeni, Eva (N.O.)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment handed down on 14 December 2014.
  2. 2 Whether the application to strike out should be entertained and its costs determined.

Ratio Decidendi

Although the grounds for leave to appeal did not inherently persuade the court, the unusual and novel history of the case justified the possibility that another court might reach a different conclusion. Therefore, leave to appeal was granted. The interlocutory application to strike out was considered withdrawn due to the applicant's failure to file supporting heads of argument, and the costs of both the main and interlocutory applications were ordered to be costs in the appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against the judgment of 14 December 2014 is granted. Costs of the application and the interlocutory application to strike out are to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against the judgment handed down on 14 December 2014 is granted.
  • Costs of the application, including the interlocutory application to strike out, shall be costs in the appeal.