Baloi and Another v Maddox Adams International South Africa (Pty) Limited (J203/16) [2019] ZALCJHB 75 (18 April 2019)

Baloi and Another v Maddox Adams International South Africa (Pty) Limited (J203/16) [2019] ZALCJHB 75 (18 April 2019)

The Court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the alleged transfer of business, existence of contracts of employment at the time of sequestration, or the application of prescription. The findings in the main judgment were explicit and, upon consideration of the grounds of appeal and submissions, the Court was not persuaded that there was any legitimate dispute on the law or factual matrix that could justify granting leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 75
Parties
Applicant: Dennis Baloi; Applicant: Caswell Mozamane Baloi; Respondent: Maddox Adams International South Africa (Pty) Limited
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 April 2019
Case Number
J203/16
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Declaratory Order Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Nkutha-Nkontwana
Legal Topics
Section 197 Transfer, Prescription, Contracts of Employment, Leave to Appeal Test
Labour Law Section 197 Transfer Prescription Contracts of Employment Leave to Appeal Test

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dennis Baloi

Applicant

Caswell Mozamane Baloi

Applicant

Maddox Adams International South Africa (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Declaratory Order Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent took over the business of the applicants' former employer for purposes of section 197 of the LRA.
  2. 2 Whether contracts of employment existed at the time of sequestration.
  3. 3 Whether prescription applies to the applicants' claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the alleged transfer of business, existence of contracts of employment at the time of sequestration, or the application of prescription. The findings in the main judgment were explicit and, upon consideration of the grounds of appeal and submissions, the Court was not persuaded that there was any legitimate dispute on the law or factual matrix that could justify granting leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.