Law Reports
Mabuza v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council …

Mabuza v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR496/13) [2015] ZALCJHB 292 (3 September 2015)

30 Reportability

Labour Law

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Leave to appeal — Application for leave to appeal against dismissal of review application — Applicant's assertion of procedural defects insufficient to establish grounds for appeal — No reasonable prospect of another court reaching a different conclusion — Leave to appeal refused. The applicant sought leave to appeal against a judgment dismissing his application to review a bargaining council arbitrator's ruling, which had dismissed his application for rescission. The applicant contended that he had corrected procedural defects that led to the dismissal of the review application. The court held that the application for leave to appeal did not disclose valid grounds and failed to suggest that another court might reasonably reach a different conclusion, resulting in the refusal of leave to appeal.

Full Judgment Text (Click to expand)

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 292
|

Mabuza v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR496/13) [2015] ZALCJHB 292 (3 September 2015)

REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Not reportable
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
ase
no: JR 496/13
In the matter between:
MFANIMPELA MABUZA

APPLICANT
and
METAL AND ENGINEERING
INDUSTRIES
BARGAINING COUNCIL

FIRST RESPONDENT
JOSEPH MPHAPHULI
N.O
SECOND RESPONDENT
AUTOMATIC MASS
PRODUCTION

THIRD RESPONDENT
Date
of ruling
:
3
September 2015 (in Chambers)
RULING: LEAVE TO
APPEAL
VAN
NIEKERK J
[1]
The applicant has filed what is termed an ‘application for
condonation for defective procedure’ and what would appear
to
be an application for leave to appeal against the whole of the
judgment delivered by this court on 12 August 2015. I deal only
with
the latter.
[2]
In its judgment, the court dismissed an application to review and set
aside a ruling made by a bargaining council arbitrator
(the second
respondent) to the effect that an application for rescission should
be dismissed. The circumstances giving rise to
that ruling are
canvassed in the judgment and I do not intend to repeat that factual
background here.
[3]
For present purposes, the applicant, in support of the present
application, states only that he has now applied to correct certain

procedural defects which led to the dismissal of the review
application and for that reason, leave to appeal ought to be granted.

This is not a basis on which leave to appeal can be granted; on the
contrary, it appears to be a concession by the applicant that
he had
mistakenly lodged an application in the High Court to review and set
aside the ruling made by Commissioner Williams and
that the delay in
applying for the rescission of the ruling that his referral should be
dismissed was attributable to this fact.
[4]
In my view, the application for leave to appeal does not disclose any
valid ground on which the applicant may rely, nor does
the
application begin to suggest that another court might reasonably come
to a different conclusion in relation to the review application.
I
make the following order:
1.
Leave to appeal is refused.
ANDRÉ
VAN NIEKERK
JUDGE
OF THE LABOUR COURT

Back to Law Reports