Sekhute and Others v Ekhuruleni Housing Company SOC and Another; In re: Sebola and Others v Ekhuruleni Housing Company SOC (J1862/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 8 (24 January 2018)

Sekhute and Others v Ekhuruleni Housing Company SOC and Another; In re: Sebola and Others v Ekhuruleni Housing Company SOC (J1862/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 8 (24 January 2018)

Leave to appeal is granted solely on the legal question of whether the court erred in its interpretation of sections 34(1)(b) and 34(5)(a) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, as this issue is of importance and has not yet been addressed by the Labour Appeal Court. The other grounds of appeal are rejected as they either misrepresent the findings of the court, are not supported by the pleadings, or are patently without merit. The applicants' conduct in raising disingenuous grounds of appeal warrants the refusal of costs for the application.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 8
Parties
Applicant: Brenda Sekhute; Applicant: Kgabo Sebola; Applicant: Teboho Mofokeng; Applicant: Moloko Baholo; Applicant: Macsean Faver; Applicant: Portia Mokhele; Applicant: Rapapa Mamoepi; Respondent: Ekhuruleni Housing Company SOC
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 January 2018
Case Number
J1862/17
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Urgent Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted solely on the legal question regarding the interpretation of sections 34(1)(b) and 34(5)(a) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act; costs refused.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Remuneration Deductions, Costs Award, Leave to Appeal, Urgent Application
Labour Law Civil Procedure Basic Conditions of Employment Act Remuneration Deductions Costs Award Leave to Appeal Urgent Application

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brenda Sekhute

Applicant

Kgabo Sebola

Applicant

Teboho Mofokeng

Applicant

Moloko Baholo

Applicant

Macsean Faver

Applicant

Portia Mokhele

Applicant

Rapapa Mamoepi

Applicant

Ekhuruleni Housing Company SOC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in its interpretation of sections 34(1)(b) and 34(5)(a) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.
  2. 2 Whether the application was properly heard as urgent.
  3. 3 Whether the cost award against the applicants was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal is granted solely on the legal question of whether the court erred in its interpretation of sections 34(1)(b) and 34(5)(a) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, as this issue is of importance and has not yet been addressed by the Labour Appeal Court. The other grounds of appeal are rejected as they either misrepresent the findings of the court, are not supported by the pleadings, or are patently without merit. The applicants' conduct in raising disingenuous grounds of appeal warrants the refusal of costs for the application.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted solely on the legal question regarding the interpretation of sections 34(1)(b) and 34(5)(a) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act; costs refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against the judgment handed down on 5 September 2017 is granted solely on the legal question whether or not the Court erred in its interpretation of sections 34(1)(b) and 34(5)(a) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 75 of 1997.
  • Parties must pay their own costs of the application.