South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town >> 2021 >> [2021] ZALCCT 98

| Noteup | LawCite

Ngadlela v General Public Service Sector Bargaining Council and Others (C06/18) [2021] ZALCCT 98 (5 July 2021)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format


Not Reportable



IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN

Case no: C06/18

In the leave to appeal of the Judgment In the matter between:

MQONDISI NGADLELA                                                                                                 Applicant

and

THE GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTOR

BARGAINING COUNCIL                                                                                       First Respondent

DP VAN TONDER N.O.                                                                                       Second Respondent

MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY

AND FISHERIES                                                                                                    Third Respondent

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT

OF AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES                                      Fourth Respondent

CEBA MTOBI                                                                                                           Fifth Respondent

Delivered:      July 5 2021 by means of scanned email

RULING

RABKIN-NAICKER J

[1]   The applicant has applied for leave to appeal against my judgment of 8 April 2021 in which I dismissed applications to review condonation and rescission rulings, which were made under the auspices of the First Respondent, with no order as to costs. The State Attorney has not filed any opposition to this application.

[2]   I have noted the applicant’s grounds of review, in which were included his displeasure with certain remarks made by the Court in its judgment, which he found to be irrelevant to his application.

[3]   The said remarks were made in relation to the question as to whether costs should be awarded against him, and on the assumption that given the professionalism of his papers, he may have been assisted by an attorney who was not on record. In the event, the Court did not make any order as to costs, and the Court did not intend any disrespect by the comments it made.

[4]   I have considered the applicant’s substantive grounds of review in respect of the Judgment and revisited my Judgment in order to consider these. Having done so, I am of the view that there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. In the circumstances, I make the following Order:

Order

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

H.Rabkin-Naicker

Judge of the Labour Court

Representation on the papers Applicant: In person

Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents: State Attorney