Collins Letsoalo and Another v Mothusi Lukhele

The respondent, Mothusi Lukhele, was employed by the Road Accident Fund (RAF) on a fixed-term contract as a Senior IT Advisor for a period of 36 months, commencing on 4 August 2021 and terminating on 31 July 2024. On 5 November 2021, the RAF terminated his employment prematurely. Lukhele launched an urgent application in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, seeking interim relief. On 23 November 2021, Sardiwalla J granted an order suspending the termination pending the outcome of a review application, in the absence of the RAF and Collins Letsoalo. The applicants later sought reconsideration of that order under Rule 6(12)(c) of the Uniform Rules of Court, which application was dismissed by Ceylon AJ on 1 August 2022 on the basis that the applicants were in wilful default and should instead have pursued rescission. Leave to appeal was refused by the High Court and on petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The applicants then applied for reconsideration of the refusal of leave to appeal under s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. By the time the matter was heard, the fixed-term employment contract had expired by effluxion of time on 31 July 2024.

The application for reconsideration under s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 was dismissed with costs.

The judgment reinforces the doctrine of mootness in South African appellate procedure and underscores that courts will not entertain appeals or reconsiderations that can yield no practical relief. It clarifies the interaction between s 16(2)(a)(i) and s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act, confirming that even potentially meritorious appeals will not be heard where the underlying dispute has been extinguished by effluxion of time. The case also illustrates the limited and exceptional nature of reconsideration of refusals of leave to appeal.