About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
>>
2012
>>
[2012] ZALCCT 26
|
|
Mlambo and Others v National Prosecution Authority and Others (C 437/11) [2012] ZALCCT 26 (21 June 2012)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
JUDGMENT
Not reportable /
of interest to other judges
Case
no: C 437/11
In the matter between:
E MLAMBO
First applicant
J DLAMINI
N MLUNGWANA
Second applicant
Third applicant
and
NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY
First Respondent
GPSSBC
Second Respondent
ADV JP HANEKOM
Third Respondent
Heard
:
20 June 2012 (in chambers)
Delivered
:
21 June 2012
Summary:
Leave to appeal dismissed
RULING ON LEAVE TO APPEAL
STEENKAMP J
The applicants have applied for leave to appeal against my
ex
tempore
judgment of 16 May 2012.
The case before this court concerned a review application of an
arbitration award. The arbitrator ruled that the applicants had
failed to discharge the onus of proving that the first respondent
(the NPA) had committed an unfair labour practice in failing
to
promote them.
In my judgment, I found that the arbitrator’s finding was not
so unreasonable that no other arbitrator could have reached
the same
conclusion. I dismissed the application but made no order as to
costs.
In their application for leave to appeal, the applicants have
rehashed their argument at the arbitration hearing. That is largely
irrelevant. What is relevant, is the evidence led at arbitration;
the finding of the arbitrator, based on that evidence; the
finding
of this court that the arbitrator’s ruling was not reviewable;
and whether another court may come to a different
conclusion.
The applicants concede that it was a precondition for the jobs for
which they applied that they had to have drivers’ licenses;
and that they did not have drivers’ licenses. Despite that,
they persist with their argument that the arbitrator’s
finding
was unreasonable.
The applicants also concede that a court should not readily
intervene in disputes regarding promotion unless the applicants can
show bad faith or an improper motive. They continue to make bald and
unsubstantiated allegations of discrimination not borne
out by the
evidence before the arbitrator. They also base their grounds of
appeal on review principles that are not in line with
the
Constitutional Court’s decision in
Sidumo v Rustenburg
Platinum Mines Ltd
.
1
The applicants have not raised any grounds of appeal on the basis of
which another court may come to a different conclusion.
I did not make a costs order
a quo
. That is where the
applicants should have let the dispute rest. Instead, they have
caused the fiscus to incur further costs in
opposing an application
for leave to appeal that has no merit. The applicants should be held
liable for the costs of this application.
Order
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
_______________________
Steenkamp J
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
1
(2007)
28
ILJ
2405 (CC).