About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2014
>>
[2014] ZALCJHB 108
|
|
Adeyemo v Eskom Holdings Soc Ltd (J2153/13) [2014] ZALCJHB 108 (13 March 2014)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
NOT
REPORTABLE
CASE
NO: J2153/13
In
the matter between:
ADEDEJI
A ADEYEMO
Applicant
And
ESKOM
HOLDINGS SOC
LTD
Respondent
Delivered
on 13 March 2014
JUDGMENT:
LEAVE TO
APPEAL
[1]
This is
an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of this Court
made on 8 January 2013, in terms of which the
urgent
application which was launched by the appellant was struck of the
roll for lack of urgency.
[2]
The
appellant filed his notice of leave to appeal on 8 October 2013 but
never filed any further submissions. Clause 15.2 of the
Practice
Manual of the Labour Court read with Rule 30(3A) of the Rules of the
Labour Court requires an application to file submission
within 5 days
of filing the notice of leave to appeal.
[3]
Having
regard to the time it has taken since the filing of the notice of
leave to appeal I have resolved to deal with the application
for
leave to appeal on the basis of the notice as filed by the appellant.
[4]
The
appellants have in this application raised several grounds of leave
to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court. I do not deem
it
necessary to repeat the grounds of leave to appeal as set out in the
appellants’ application in this judgment. I have
taken those
grounds of leave to appeal (though not substantiated) into account in
arriving at the conclusion at the end of this
judgment.
[5]
In
considering whether leave to appeal should be granted or refused the
test to apply is whether there is a reasonable possibility
that
another court is likely to arrive at a different decision to that of
the court a quo. The importance of the matter is also
a factor to
take into account in the consideration of whether leave to appeal
should be granted or refused. In any case the judgment
in the present
matter is not appealable because the merits of the dispute were not
determined. The matter was stuck of the roll
for lack of urgency.
[6]
In the
present matter taking the above into consideration I am not persuaded
that the applicant has made out a case that another
court may
reasonably arrive at a decision different to the one reached by this
court. I am also not persuaded that there
is any other basis
that warrants the granting of leave to appeal.
[7]
In the
premises the leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court is refused.
E Molahlehi
Appearances:
Matter
considered in Chambers