About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZALCJHB 245
|
|
Tulwana and Another v City of Johannesburg (JS871/11) [2015] ZALCJHB 245 (7 August 2015)
THE
LABOURT COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA: JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
Case no: JS 871/11
In the matter between:
ALAN
TULWANA
First Applicant
ROBERT
WIEBOSCH
Second Applicant
and
CITY OF
JOHANNESBURG
Respondent
Judgment Delivered: 07
August 2015
Considered In Chambers
LEAVE TO APPEAL: JUDGMENT
MOLAHLEHI,
J
[1]
This
is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of this
Court made on 29 April 2015, in terms of which the applicants’
claim of automatically unfair dismissal was dismissed. The main case
of the applicants was that the respondent had dismissed them
for
making protected disclosure and in the context where they had
reasonable expectation that their fixed term contracts would
have
been renewed.
[2]
The
essence of the reasoning of the Court in dismissing the applicants’
claim was that they had failed to show that their
dismissal was for
an impermissible reason. The Court also found that the employment of
the applicants by the respondent came to
an end as a result of the
effluxion.
[3]
In
their application for leave to appeal the applicants have raised
several grounds upon which they seek to have the decision of
the
Court overturned by the Labour Appeal Court. I do not deem it
necessary to repeat the same in this judgment. The application
is
opposed by the respondent who has also made a detailed and well
considered submission. In arriving at the conclusion as I do
below I
have taken into account the submissions made by both parties
including the earlier judgment of this Court.
[4]
In
terms of s 17 of the Superior Courts Act,
[1]
leave to appeal should be granted only when there are
reasonable prospects that the appeal would succeed or if the Appeal
Court is likely to arrive at a decision different to that of the
trial Court. The onus is on the applicant to show the Court that
the
leave to appeal is not based on remote but realistic prospects of
succeeding on appeal.
[5]
I
am persuaded in the present instance that there are realistic
prospects that the Labour Appeal Court could arrive at a decision
different to that reached by this Court when dismissing the
applicants’ claim.
Order
[6]
In
the premises, the applicants are granted leave to the Labour Appeal
Court with no order as to costs.
_____________
Molahlehi, J
Judge of the Labour Court Johannesburg
Appearances:
The matter considered in Chambers.
[1]
Act
number 10 of 2013.