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