Law Reports
Ramayapedi v Transnet Bargaining Council and Others (JR60/2016) …

Ramayapedi v Transnet Bargaining Council and Others (JR60/2016) [2017] ZALCJHB 171 (21 February 2017)

30 Reportability

Labour Law

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Leave to appeal — Application for leave to appeal against dismissal of review application — Application filed late and without proper grounds — Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain late application — Applicant fails to meet required threshold for leave to appeal. The applicant sought leave to appeal against a judgment dismissing his application to review an arbitration award. The application was filed after the deadline, and the court found it lacked jurisdiction. Additionally, the applicant's submissions did not present new grounds for appeal and failed to demonstrate an understanding of the arbitration process. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

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
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZALCJHB 171
|

Ramayapedi v Transnet Bargaining Council and Others (JR60/2016) [2017] ZALCJHB 171 (21 February 2017)

THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not
reportable
Case
no: JR 60/2016
THABO
RAMAYAPEDI
Applicant
and
TRANSNET
BARGAINING
COUNCIL
First

Respondent
LUNGILE
MTIYA
Second

Respondent
TRANSNET
FREIGHT
RAIL
Third

Respondent
Chambers
21 February 2017
RULING:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
VAN
NIEKERK J
[1]
The applicant applies for leave to appeal against the whole of the
judgment delivered by this court on 1 September 2016. In
the
judgment, the court dismissed with costs an application to review and
set aside an arbitration award issued by the second respondent.
[2]
First, the application was filed late. In terms of rule 30, the
application ought to have been filed by no later than 6 January
2016.
The application was filed a week later, with no application for
combination. On this basis, the court has no jurisdiction
to
entertain the application and it stands to be dismissed on that
basis.
[3]
In any event, as I observed in the judgment, the application for
review was confused and the founding and supplementary affidavits

virtually incomprehensible. The application for leave to appeal does
not advance any grounds not already considered in the reasons
for
judgment. The applicant appears not to appreciate the nature of the
test to be applied in the present instance and has simply
restated,
in a possibly more coherent form, the basis of the review
application. In particular, seems to me that the applicant
fails to
appreciate the nature of arbitration proceedings and their relation
to a disciplinary enquiry.
[3]
In the circumstances, I do not intend to burden this ruling with a
detailed consideration of the applicant submissions in support
of his
application for leave to appeal. In my view, the applicant has failed
to meet the required threshold and leave to appeal
stands to be
refused.
I
make the following order:
1. The application for leave to appeal
is dismissed.
_____________________
ANDRE
VAN NIEKERK
JUDGE
OF THE LABOUR COURT

Back to Law Reports