South African Transport and Allied Workers Union v Garvis and Others (2580/07) [2010] ZAWCHC 569 (23 November 2010)

40 Reportability
Civil Procedure

Brief Summary

Appeal — Leave to appeal — Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal — Court finds reasonable prospects of success on appeal — Leave granted to appeal with costs to be borne by the respondents.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZAWCHC 569
|

|

South African Transport and Allied Workers Union v Garvis and Others (2580/07) [2010] ZAWCHC 569 (23 November 2010)

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT. CAPE
TOWN)
CASE NO
:
2580/07
DATE
:
23
NOVEMBER 2010
In the matter between:
SOUTH AFRICAN
TRANSPORT
AND
ALLIED WORKERS UNION
….........................................................
Applikant
and
JACQUELINE
GARVIS
…................................................................
1
st
Respondent
THURAYA
NAIDOO
…....................................................................
2
nd
Respondent
CHINATOWN (RSA)
INTERNATIONAL
TRADING
CC
…...............................................................................
3
rd
Respondent
ANEES
SOEKER
…........................................................................
4
th
Respondent
ANDREW
NJIOKWUEMEGI
…........................................................
5
th
Respondent
DOLORES
ROSANNE REITZ
….....................................................
6
th
Respondent
MAURICE
ROBERTSON
….............................................................
7
th
Respondent
HAROLD
BURGER
….....................................................................
8
th
Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Application for
Leave to Appeal)
HLOPHE.
JP
:
This
is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Appeal. There are reasonable prospects of success on appeal.

Accordingly, leave is grant
ed
to the Supreme
Court
of
Appeal.
Furthermore, it is ordered that the costs shall be the costs in the
appeal.
HLOPHE,
JP
/
26/11/2010