About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZALCJHB 60
|
|
Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU) and Others v Bafokeng Rasimone Management Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (J2578/2015) [2017] ZALCJHB 60 (21 February 2017)
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
JOHANNESBURG
Not reportable
Case
number: J 2578/2015
ASSOCIATION OF
MINEWORKERS AND
CONSTRUCTION
UNION (AMCU)
First Applicant
INDIVIDUALS WHOSE
NAMES ARE LISTED IN
ANNEXURE
“A”
Second to further Applicants
and
BAFOKENG RASIMONE
MANAGEMENT
SERVICES
(PTY)
LTD
First
Respondent
THE NATIONAL UNION OF
MINEWORKERS
Second Respondent
UASA – THE
UNION
Third Respondent
THE MINISTER OF
LABOUR
Fourth Respondent
THE MINISTER OF
JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Fifth Respondent
THE CHAMBER OF
MINES
Sixth Respondent
(
AMICUS CURIAE)
Decided:
In Chambers
Judgment
: 21 February 2017
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
PRINSLOO
J.
[1]
The Applicants filed an application for
leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment and order of this
Court handed down on
19 December 2016 in which the Court dismissed
the Applicants’ application with no order as to costs.
[2]
The application for leave to appeal is
opposed by the First and the Sixth Respondents. The First Respondent
filed comprehensive
written submissions and the Sixth Respondent
indicated that it was opposing the application for leave to appeal
for the reasons
set out in the First Respondent’s written
submissions.
[3]
I have considered the grounds for appeal as
raised by the Applicants and the comprehensive written submissions
filed by the Applicants.
I also considered the submissions made in
opposition thereof and I do not intend to repeat those herein.
[4]
It is
trite that in order to be entitled to leave to
appeal,
an applicant in the application for leave to appeal must satisfy this
Court that it has reasonable prospects of success
on appeal and that
based on the facts and the law another court would arrive at a
conclusion different than the one reached by
the Court
a
quo
.
Appeals should be limited to matters where there is a reasonable
prospect that the factual matrix could receive a different treatment
where there is some legitimate dispute on the law.
[5]
Section
17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act
[1]
provides that leave to appeal may be granted if there is a compelling
reason why the appeal should be heard.
In
casu
important questions of law are raised and there is a legitimate
dispute on the law that should be decided and that requires the
appeal to be heard.
[6]
In my
view this is a case where the appeal should be heard.
Order
[7]
I
therefore make the following order:
7.1 Leave to appeal
is granted.
7.2 There is no
order as to costs.
______________
Connie
Prinsloo
Judge
of the Labour Court
[1]
Act 10 of 2013.