THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

HELD AT JOHANNESBURG

Case No: J 2163/15

In the matter between:

JACK TLOKANA                                                                                                        Applicant

and

MEDIA, INFORMATION AND

COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES

SECTOR EDUCATION AND

TRAINING AUTHORITY                                                                                First Respondent

CHAIRPERSON OF THE                                                                         Second Respondent

DISCIPLINARY ENQUIRY, MM

APHANE

JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

LAGRANGE J

[1] The applicant in this matter seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dismissing his application for urgent relief on 14 March 2016 to prevent the respondents from proceeding with his disciplinary hearing scheduled for 17 March 2016, pending the outcome of his application for leave to appeal.

[2] On 20 November 2015, Everett AJ dismissed the original urgent application brought by the applicant to allow him legal representation in disciplinary proceedings. An application for leave to appeal against that judgment and a cross-appeal against the failure to order costs against the applicant in that judgment is still pending.

[3] In the second application launched under the same case number, the applicant then sought to prevent the enquiry from proceeding pending the finalisation of the leave to appeal process against the judgment of Everett AJ.

[4] In my judgment, I dismissed the application to stay the disciplinary proceedings on two separate grounds. Firstly, I found that the pending application for leave to appeal was essentially against a judgment the true character of which was a ruling on an interlocutory matter in disciplinary proceedings and properly fell within the ambit of subsection 18(2) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 in terms of which orders of an interlocutory nature are not ordinarily suspended pending an application for leave to appeal. Secondly, I held that the application for leave to appeal against the order of Everett AJ did not in, and of itself give rise to a clear right to stay the enquiry, which the applicant had not established. Elsewhere in the judgment I set out the principles governing the limited scope of the court to intervene in incomplete disciplinary proceedings and noted that these applied with equal force to the application before me.

[5] The applicant advanced no factual basis on which his attempt to stay the disciplinary proceedings was an exceptional on the lines contemplated in the judgments cited at paragraphs [6] and [7] of my judgment.  Even if the applicant might conceivably have a slender prospect of success in arguing that the court incorrectly interpreted the application of s 18 of the Superior Courts Act, I am not persuaded he has any reasonable prospect of succeeding in persuading another court that his case was one in which the court ought to intervene in an incomplete disciplinary proceeding.

Order

[6] The application for leave to appeal against the judgment in this matter handed down on 17 March 2016 is dismissed with costs.

_______________________

Lagrange J

Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa

5 October 2016

(In Chambers)