Advance Warehouse Limited v Mashigo (J631/12) [2016] ZALCJHB 23 (29 January 2016)

45 Reportability

Brief Summary

Appeal — Leave to appeal — Application for leave to appeal against dismissal of rescission application — Test for granting leave to appeal is whether there is a reasonable prospect of a different conclusion by another court — Applicant contended that the court erred in finding lack of proper notice — Leave to appeal granted to Labour Appeal Court for reconsideration of the facts.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2016
>>
[2016] ZALCJHB 23
|

|

Advance Warehouse Limited v Mashigo (J631/12) [2016] ZALCJHB 23 (29 January 2016)

THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not
Reportable
Case
No J631/12
In the
matter between:
ADVANCE
WAREHOUSING
LIMITED

Applicant
and
ANNAH
PRUDENCE
MASHIGO

Respondent
Date:
29 January 2016
Decided
in chambers
JUDGMENT
IN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
Mothibi,
AJ
Introduction:
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal
against a judgment that was delivered on 22 January 2015 in terms of
which the Applicant’s
application to rescind an order of this
Court granted in its absence on 8 June 2012 was dismissed with costs.
[2]
I have considered the Applicant’s
written submissions in support of its application for leave to
appeal.  The Respondent
did not oppose the application for leave
to appeal.
Analysis:
[3]
It is trite that the test in deciding
whether to grant leave to appeal is whether there is a reasonable
prospect that another court
may come to a different conclusion than
the conclusion reached by the court a quo.  The Applicant in its
grounds of review
takes issue with my judgment that it principally
sought to rescind the order of 8 June 2012 because “... there
has never
been proper notice served on the Applicant ...”.
The Applicant submits that I took the aforementioned remarks out of

context and that another court may come to a different conclusion
having regard to its version contained in the totality of its
papers.
[4]
Having regard to the submission made by the
Applicant I grant the Applicant leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal
Court in circumstances
where it may, having regard to the facts
contained in the affidavits filed in support of the rescission
application, come to a
different conclusion having regard to those
facts.
Order:
I.
Leave to appeal to the
Labour Appeal Court is granted against the whole of the judgment
delivered on 22 January 2015.
II.
There is no order as to
costs.
__________________
Mothibi,
AJ
Acting
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa