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 court found that the application for leave to appeal raised important questions of law and that there was a legitimate dispute on the law requiring appellate consideration. The applicants satisfied the requirements of section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act, as there was a compelling reason for the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] ZALCJHB 60
- Parties
- Applicant: Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU); Applicant: Individuals whose names are listed in Annexure “A”; Respondent: Bafokeng Rasimone Management Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The National Union of Mineworkers; Respondent: UASA – The Union; Respondent: The Minister of Labour; Respondent: The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: The Chamber of Mines
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- J2578/2015
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Initial Application
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal is granted with no order as to costs.
- Judges
- Prinsloo
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospects of Success, Compelling Reason for Appeal, Superior Courts Act, Costs Order
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (AMCU)
Applicant
Individuals whose names are listed in Annexure “A”
Applicant
Bafokeng Rasimone Management Services (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
The National Union of Mineworkers
Respondent
UASA – The Union
Respondent
The Minister of Labour
Respondent
The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
Respondent
The Chamber of Mines
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Initial Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
- 2 Whether there is a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard under section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act.
- 3 Whether important questions of law and legitimate disputes on the law justify granting leave to appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for leave to appeal raised important questions of law and that there was a legitimate dispute on the law requiring appellate consideration. The applicants satisfied the requirements of section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act, as there was a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal is granted with no order as to costs.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is granted.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
46 paragraphs
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.