South African Municipal Workers Union obo Members v Mogalakwena Municipality and Others (J 279/2023) [2023] ZALCJHB 173 (9 June 2023)
The court held that the order striking the application from the roll was not final and thus not appealable. The applicants may pursue the proceedings in the ordinary course. The costs order was made in terms of section 162, which grants the Labour Court a broad discretion, and the reasons for awarding costs to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] ZALCJHB 173
- Parties
- Applicant: South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU) obo 24 Members listed in Annexure “A”; Respondent: Mogalakwena Municipality; Respondent: Municipal Manager: Mogalakwena Local Municipality – Mr MM Malukleke; Respondent: PC Maake Attorneys
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- J 279/2023
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Order Striking Interim Stay Application From the Roll
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Van Niekerk
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Costs Award, Striking From the Roll, Urgency, Disclosure of Facts
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU) obo 24 Members listed in Annexure “A”
Applicant
Mogalakwena Municipality
Respondent
Municipal Manager: Mogalakwena Local Municipality – Mr MM Malukleke
Respondent
PC Maake Attorneys
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Order Striking Interim Stay Application From the Roll
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an order striking a matter from the roll is appealable.
- 2 Whether the costs order made by the court is subject to appeal.
- 3 Whether the applicants have prospects of success on appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the order striking the application from the roll was not final and thus not appealable. The applicants may pursue the proceedings in the ordinary course. The costs order was made in terms of section 162, which grants the Labour Court a broad discretion, and the reasons for awarding costs to the respondent included the applicants' failure to make full disclosure of relevant facts. The application for leave to appeal was found to lack merit and prospects of success, and the applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application is dismissed, with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: J 279/2023
In the matter between:
SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION (SAMWU) OBO 24 MEMBERS LISTED IN ANNEXURE “A” HERETO Applicants And MOGALAKWENA MUNICIPALITY First Respondent MUNICIPAL MANAGER: MOGALAKWENA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY – MR MM MALUKLEKE Second Respondent PC MAAKE ATTORNEYS Third Respondent
Delivered: 9 June 2023
(This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives, by email, publication on the Labour Court’s website and released to SAFLI. The date on which the judgment is delivered is deemed to be 9 June 2023.)
RULING: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
VAN NIEKERK, J
[1] The applicants seek leave to appeal against the order made by this court on 9 March 2023, when the court struck an application for an interim order to stay a disciplinary hearing from the roll, with costs, for lack of urgency.
[2] It is trite that an order striking a matter from the roll is not a final order. An applicant in those circumstances may pursue the proceedings in the ordinary course, on the same papers. The order granted in the present instance is not a final order or an order having final effect, and is thus not appealable. The application stands to be dismissed on this basis.
[3] To the extent that the application for leave to appeal is directed against the order for costs, the court has a broad discretion in terms of section 162 to make orders for costs according to the requirements of the law and fairness. That formulation, as the Constitutional Court has pointed out, has the consequence that the rule applied in the civil courts (i.e. that costs follow the result) does not ordinarily apply in the Labour Court. But that does not mean that this court is not empowered, in appropriate circumstances, to grant a successful party its costs. In the present instance, the reasons for granting the respondent its costs are reflected in paragraph 10 of the judgment. They extend to a failure by the applicant to take the court in to its confidence and failing to make full disclosure of all of the relevant facts in the founding affidavit.
[4] There is no prospect of success on appeal.
[5] Finally, there is no reason why the applicants ought not to be ordered to pay the costs of this application. The application manifestly lacks merit and borders on the misguided.
I make the following order:
1. The application is dismissed, with costs.
André van Niekerk
Judge of the Labour Court