About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Port Elizabeth Labour Court, Port Elizabeth
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Port Elizabeth Labour Court, Port Elizabeth
>>
2014
>>
[2014] ZALCPE 29
|
|
Klaas v Standard Bank of South Africa and Others (P530/2012) [2014] ZALCPE 29 (2 October 2014)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH
JUDGMENT
Not reportable
Case
no: P 530/2012
In
the matter between:
SIVIWE
KLAAS
Applicant
and
STANDARD
BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA
First
Respondent
THE
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
AND
ARBITRATION
Second Respondent
JACOBUS
DU PLESSIS
N.O
Third Respondent
Decided
: In Chambers
Judgment
: 02 October 2014
Summary
: Application for leave to appeal, no prospect that another
Court could come to a different
conclusion, application is dismissed.
JUDGMENT-APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
PRINSLOO,
AJ
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal
against a judgment of this Court handed down on 22 July 2014 in terms
of which an arbitration
award was reviewed and set aside and
substituted with an order that the Applicant’s (the Third
Respondent in the review application)
dismissal was substantively and
procedurally fair. Leave to appeal is sought against the whole of the
judgment and part of the
orders granted by the Court.
[2]
The
Applicant listed various grounds where this Court had erred in its
finding. I do not intend to repeat the various grounds
,
suffices to say that I have considered these grounds. In summary the
grounds are that the Court erred in making certain factual
findings,
erred in failing to correctly apply the test as enunciated in the
Heroldt
v Nedbank
[1]
,
erred in not considering the issue of double jeopardy and erred in
making certain legal conclusions.
[3]
The application is opposed. In summary the
First Respondent’s submissions are that the Applicant is
canvassing a case that
was not canvassed during the review
proceedings, there was no review filed by the Applicant and the
issues before Court were confined
to those raised in the review
papers, the Court’s findings on the facts and law are not
appealable and there is no reasonable
prospect that the Labour Appeal
Court may reach a different conclusion on the grounds for appeal as
raised.
The
test in the application for leave to appeal
[4]
It
is trite that there is no automatic right of appeal against a
judgment of the Labour Court. This is clear from section
166(1)
of the Labour Relations Act
[2]
(hereinafter referred to as the “the LRA”) which provides
that any party to any proceedings before the Labour Court
may apply
to the Labour Court for leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court
against any final judgment or final order of the Labour
Court. In
order to be entitled to leave to appeal, an applicant in an
application for leave to appeal must satisfy this Court that
there is
a “
reasonable
prospect that another court could come to a different conclusion
”.
(See
Woolworths
Ltd v Matthews
[3]
.)
[5]
The
test is not whether or not there is a possibility that another court
could come to a different conclusion, the test is whether
or not
there is a reasonable prospect that another court could come to a
different conclusion. In
Westing
House Break and Equipment (Pty) Ltd v Bilger Engineering (Pty) Ltd
[4]
the Court reiterated the general principle that in order for an
applicant for leave to appeal to succeed, the applicant must
demonstrate
that it has a reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
It was also stated that an appeal should be allowed where the matter
is of great importance or where the matter is of public importance or
where the court is of the view that the decision might affect
other
questions. (See in this regard
Moller
v Keimoes School Committee and Another
[5]
)
[6]
In casu
and
in view of the grounds for appeal raised by the Applicant, I am not
convinced that
there
are any prospects that another court might come to a different
conclusion than the one arrived at by this Court.
[7]
I am not persuaded that the
Applicant has made out a case for leave to appeal, that any of the
factors set out
supra
are
present or that the Applicant has reasonable prospects of success on
appeal and scarce judicial resources should not be spent
on an appeal
that lacks merit.
[8]
The
Supreme Court of Appeal in
Zweni
v Minister of Law and Order
[6]
held in respect of the
jurisdictional
requirements for a civil appeal:
”
Leave
is granted if there are reasonable prospects of success. So much is
trite.
”
[9]
The
Supreme Court of Appeal held in in
Dexgroup
(Pty) Ltd v Trustco Group
[7]
that
:
”
The
need to obtain leave to appeal is a valuable tool in ensuring that
scarce judicial resources are not spent on appeals that lack
merit.
It should in this case have been deployed by refusing leave to
appeal.”
[10]
Having found that the Applicant has not
made out a case for the granting of the leave to appeal and that he
has no prospects of
success on appeal, I make the following order:
10.1
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
20.2There
is no order as to costs.
______________
Prinsloo,
AJ
Acting
Judge of the Labour Court
[1]
[2]
Act
66
of 1995
[3]
[1999]
3 BLLR 288
(LC)
[4]
1986
(2) SA 555 (A)
[5]
[1911]
AD 585)
[6]
1993 (1) SA 523 (A).
[7]
Unreported judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal (687/12)
[2013]
ZASCA 120
(20 September 2013).