South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg >> 2016 >> [2016] ZALCJHB 495

| Noteup | LawCite

Solidarity v Luvhomba Group (Pty) Ltd (J1674/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 495 (18 July 2016)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format


THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

Not reportable

Case no: J 1674/15


In the matter between

SOLIDARITY obo N J ZIHALI                                                                               Applicant

and 

LUVHOMBA GROUP (PTY) LTD                                                                      Respondent

 

Ruling: 18 July 2016 (in chambers)


JUDGMENT


VAN NIEKERK J

[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgement delivered by this court on 25 May 2016. In the court’s judgement, delivered ex tempore, the court made a settlement agreement dated 10 June 2015 an order of court in terms of s 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act.

[2] The applicant has failed to attach to its notice of application for leave to appeal or produce subsequently a transcribed judgment. Paragraph 14.5 of the practice manual applicable in this court provides that in circumstances where ex tempore judgments are delivered, it is the responsibility of the parties to arrange for a transcript of the judgment. Further, awaiting the transcript does not delay the time periods that are applicable, which commence running on that day on which judgment is handed down.

[3] The applicant’s breach of the provisions of the practice manual constitute sufficient reason to dismiss the present application, with costs. This is so because on 13 June 2016, my associate wrote a letter to the applicant drawing to its attention to the provisions of paragraph 14.5 and noting that the matter would receive no further attention unless and until the transcribed judgment had been filed. The applicant has chosen not to heed this directive. For the purposes of the broad discretion conferred on this court by s 162 of the LRA, in my view, the interests of the law and fairness require that the respondent be entitled to recover its costs in relation to this application.

I make the following order:

1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs.

 

ANDRÉ VAN NIEKERK

JUDGE OF THE LABOUR COURT