IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: JR1899 /2020
In the matter between:
EMPACT GROUP (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
NATASHA MONI N.O. First R espondent
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION Second R espondent
ABONGILE MANELI Third Respondent
Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: 24 February 2024
This judgment was handed down electronically by emailing a copy to the parties. The 24
th of February 2025 is deemed to be the date of delivery of this
judgment.
JUDGMENT
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
2
ITZKIN , AJ
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the whole ex tempore
judgment and order of this court delivered on 5 November 2024. In the judgment, a
review application pertaining to a rescission ruling was dismissed with no order as to
costs.
[2] I have considered the grounds upon which leave to appeal is sought , as we ll
as the written submissions. I am unpersuaded that the intended appeal would have a
reasonable prospect of success. This is so principally because there is no
reasonable prospect that an appeal court would conclude differently, having regard to the following:
2.1 As was acknowledged in the applicant’s founding affida vit in the review
application, the rescission application was “terse” and ought to have
contained a proper explanation for the default.
2.2 The argument that service of the CCMA notice of set down on the
applicant was defective on the basis that it never chose the e- mail address in
question as the address for service (despite it being the applicant’s e- mail
address) , is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what CCMA rule
5(1)(c) requires . That rule permits service to be on a party’s e- mail address
(which the party need not specifically identify or choose for service). As an alternative, it provides for the person to choose another alternative address for receiving service. It follows that the fact that the applicant did not
specifically choose the e- mail address for service, does not render the service
defective.
2.3 The argument that the Commissioner failed to adequately have regard
for the applicant’s prospects of success is not sustainable, but ultimately, nothing turns on this. On an overall basis , it was not established (based on
the sparse explanation advanced) that the award was erroneously sought or
erroneously made in the absence of the applicant, and that the rescission ruling is reviewable.
3
2.4 The further intended grounds of appeal pertain to matters that were
thoroughly considered (and dealt with) in the proceedings and main judgment
and are plainly unsustainable.
[3] There are also no other compelling reasons why the intended appeal should
be heard.
Order
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
R. Itzkin
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa