Before: CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, In Chambers
The legal point raised in this
application is who should grant or refuse leave to appeal in terms of
s92F of the Labour Act [Chapter
28:01] in
circumstances where the presiding President is unavailable. The
relevant section provides:
"92F
Appeals against decisions of Labour Court
(1) An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme
Court from any decision of the Labour Court.
(2) Any party wishing to appeal from any decision of the Labour Court
on a question of law in terms of subsection (1) shall seek from the
President who made the decision leave to appeal that decision.
(3) If the President refuses leave to appeal in terms of subsection
(2), the party may seek leave from the judge of the Supreme Court to
appeal."
This is an important point that should be determined by the Supreme
Court as opposed to a Judge of the Supreme Court in Chambers.
Accordingly I direct that this matter be set down for hearing before
a Court of three Judges.
I also direct that at the hearing of this matter the parties should
be ready to argue the matter on the merits. In other words, the
parties should first argue the application for leave as a preliminary
point and then the merits of the appeal. This will enable the Court
to consider the merits of the appeal should it conclude that it can
grant the leave to appeal.
Accordingly, the parties in this case are hereby granted leave to
augment their Heads of Argument in respect of the preliminary point
and to file Heads of Argument on the merits of the appeal. This
approach may expedite the finalisation of this matter.
In the result, the Registrar is directed to set this matter down.
There will be no order as to costs.
Civil Division of the Attorney-General's Office, respondents'
legal practitioners
