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 131
|
|
Tshifhango and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (JR951/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 131 (25 April 2017)
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
JOHANNESBURG
Not reportable
Case
no: JR 951/16
TSAKANI
ISABEL
TSHIFHANGO
First Applicant
ELIZABETH
KUKI MAKHONDO
Second
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER
OF JUSTICE AND
CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES
First Respondent
THE DIRECTOR
GENERAL: JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Second Respondent
THE
REGIONAL HEAD: JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Third
Respondent
THE ACTING
DIRECTOR HUMAN RESOURCES:
Fourth Respondent
JUSTICE
AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
GAUTENG
Decided:
In Chambers
Judgment:
25 April 2017
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
APPEAL
PRINSLOO
J.
[1]
The Respondents filed an application for
leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment and order of this
Court handed down on
23 March 2017.
[2]
The application for leave to appeal is
opposed and both parties filed comprehensive written submissions.
[3]
I have considered the grounds for appeal as
raised by the Respondents as well as the submissions made in support
and 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 could
arrive
at a conclusion different than the one reached by the Court
a
quo
.
[5]
Suffice
to say that after due consideration of the application for leave to
appeal, I am satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect
that
another court could arrive at a different conclusion than the one
arrived at by this Court. Furthermore, I am also of the
view that
there is an important question of law that should be decided and that
requires the appeal to be heard. In
Westing
House Break and Equipment (Pty) Ltd v Bilger Engineering (Pty) Ltd
[1]
the
court stated that an appeal should be allowed where the matter is of
great importance or where the matter is of public importance
or where
the court is of the view that the decision might affect other
questions.
Order
[6]
I therefore make the following order:
6.1 Leave to appeal
is granted.
6.2 Costs to be
costs in the appeal.
______________
Connie Prinsloo
Judge
of the Labour Court
[1]
1986 (2) SA
555
(A)