About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZALCJHB 56
|
|
South African Municipal Workers Union v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J2792/2017) [2018] ZALCJHB 56 (7 February 2018)
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not
reportable
CASE
NO: J2792/2017
In
the matter between:
SOUTH
AFRICAN MUNICIPAL
WORKERS
UNION
Applicant
and
CCMA
First Respondent
THEMBEKILE
NSIBANYONI N.O
Second
Respondent
THABILE
GOODNESS COKA
Third Respondent
RULING:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
Date
of ruling: 7 February 2018
VAN
NIEKERK J
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal against the order made by
this court on 31 October 2017. The order issued by the
court was that
the execution of an arbitration award under case number GAJB 218/2017
be stayed, pending the outcome of an application
for review filed
under case number JR 2397/2017, with the rider that the order would
lapse should the applicant fail to furnish
security as required by s
145 (8) of the LRA within 7 days.
[2]
The applicant appears to seek leave to appeal against the findings
that the order staying the writ of execution was conditional
on the
applicant filing security within 7 days, and the order for costs.
[3]
There is no merit in the application. First, while it may be correct
that the issue of security had not been raised in the papers,
the LRA
requires a party seeking review to furnish security in the amount
reflected in s 145 (8). Indeed, the section provides
that the filing
of a review application does not suspend the execution of an
arbitration award unless security is provided. The
court has a
discretion to stay a writ of execution pending the outcome of a main
application – the discretion in this instance
was exercised
entirely within the ambit of the statutory framework.
[4]
In any event, this element of the court’s order does not
constitute a final order. It is an interim order, pending the
outcome
of the underlying review, and conditional only on the applicant’s
compliance with s 145. Interim orders are not ordinarily
appealable,
and the present application stands to be dismissed on this basis
alone.
[5]
In so far as the applicant seeks leave to appeal against the costs
order, the order was occasioned by the applicant’s
failure to
comply with S 145 (8). The court has a broad discretion in terms of s
162 to make orders for costs according to the
requirements of the law
and fairness. This discretion is not lightly interfered with by an
appeal court – indeed, leave to
appeal against costs orders
only is not ordinarily granted.
For
these reasons, I make the following order:
1.
Leave to appeal is refused, with costs.
André
van Niekerk
Judge