Road Traffic Management Corporation and Another v Moyana (J2127/10) [2011] ZALCJHB 214 (5 May 2011)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The original judgment was correct in finding the suspension unlawful due to the failure to extend the 60-day period as required by the SMS Handbook. The SMS Handbook provisions were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] ZALCJHB 214
- Parties
- Applicant: Road Traffic Management Corporation; Applicant: Letsoalo Collins NO; Respondent: Moyana Hlengani Jackson
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- J2127/10
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Judgment Refusing Extension of Suspension.
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal refused.
- Judges
- Molahlehi
- Legal Topics
- Unlawful Suspension, Sms Handbook Compliance, Leave to Appeal, Urgent Application
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Road Traffic Management Corporation
Applicant
Letsoalo Collins NO
Applicant
Moyana Hlengani Jackson
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Judgment Refusing Extension of Suspension.
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted.
- 2 Whether the court erred in finding the suspension unlawful due to non-extension beyond 60 days as required by the SMS Handbook.
- 3 Whether the SMS Handbook provisions are binding contractual terms or merely guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The original judgment was correct in finding the suspension unlawful due to the failure to extend the 60-day period as required by the SMS Handbook. The SMS Handbook provisions were treated as binding, and the postponement did not constitute a valid extension. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal refused.
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court is refused.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Case number: J2127/10 ROAD TRAFIC MANAGEMENT COORPORATION v MOYANA HLENGANI JACKSON – Leave to appeal refused. Failure to extend 60 days in terms of provisions of the SMS Handbook. 2011
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT JOHANNESBURG. Not reportable
Case number: J2127/10
In the matter between:
ROAD TRAFIC MANAGEMENT
COORPORATION ...............................................................................1ST Applicant
LETSOALO COLLINS NO ...................................................................2nd Applicant
And
MOYANA HLENGANI JACKSON .........................................................Respondent
Judgement
Molahlehi J
This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of this court which was made on 10 November 2010. In terms of that judgment the court treated the matter as urgent and found the suspension of the respondent, Mr Moyana to have been unlawful it went beyond the 60 (sixty) days as prescribed and was never extended by the applicant as required in terms of the SMS Handbook. The court also found that the applicant, (respondent in the urgent application) had failed to extend the 60 (sixty) days of suspension of the respondent required by the SMS Handbook.
The applicant in its ground for leave to appeal contends that this court erred in finding that:
the application was urgent
the Court had jurisdiction to determine the unlawfulness (or) otherwise of the suspension
the provisions of the SMS Handbook are applicable as binding (in) contractual terms instead of as a guide;
the provisions of the SMS Handbook and in particular clause 2.7 (2) are peremptory.
The applicant contends further that the Court erred in dealing with the suspension provisions of the SMS Handbook without regard to the context in which the suspension occurred including not treating the postponement as an extension of the 60 (sixty) days of suspension.
In considering whether or not to grant leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court I am called upon to evaluate the possibility that another court is likely to come to a different conclusion to the one reached by this court in this matter. In other words I am called upon to determine whether there may be reasonable prospects that another court may come to a different conclusion than the one reached by this court. This court has the power to grant or refuse leave to appeal in terms of section 166 of the Labour Relations Act of 1995.
I have considered the submissions made by both parties including the authorities referred thereto including my judgment on the matter. I am of the view that my judgement is correct in all respects and thus there is no reasonable possibility that another court is likely to arrive at a decision different to the one made by me.
It is accordingly my view that the applicant has failed to make out a case for leave to appeal and thus its application for leave to appeal stand to fail.
In the premises leave to the Labour Appeal Court is refused with no order as to costs.
_______________
Judge of the labour court
Date of judgement: 5 May 2011
Appearances: The matter was considered in chambers.
1