Bihl v Greater Kokstad Municipality and Others (JR 641/2020) [2022] ZALCJHB 334 (29 November 2022)

Bihl v Greater Kokstad Municipality and Others (JR 641/2020) [2022] ZALCJHB 334 (29 November 2022)

The court held that the application for leave to appeal failed to meet the threshold established by section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, as there were no reasonable prospects of success nor compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard. The applicant's defence at arbitration was not based on mental incapacity, and no objection was raised regarding her fitness to testify. The review court's role was limited to assessing the reasonableness of the arbitrator's findings, which disclosed no reviewable irregularity. The applicant misconceived the nature of a review, and the application raised no new substantive issues. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 334
Parties
Applicant: Dolly Bihl; Respondent: Greater Kokstad Municipality; Respondent: SALGBC; Respondent: Jerald Vedan N.O.
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2022
Case Number
JR 641/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Mental Health in Employment, Leave to Appeal, Misconduct, Incapacity Defence
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Mental Health in Employment Leave to Appeal Misconduct Incapacity Defence

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dolly Bihl

Applicant

Greater Kokstad Municipality

Respondent

SALGBC

Respondent

Jerald Vedan N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the dismissal of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's mental health condition was adequately considered in the arbitration and review proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the review court erred in its approach to the evidence and findings of the arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application for leave to appeal failed to meet the threshold established by section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, as there were no reasonable prospects of success nor compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard. The applicant's defence at arbitration was not based on mental incapacity, and no objection was raised regarding her fitness to testify. The review court's role was limited to assessing the reasonableness of the arbitrator's findings, which disclosed no reviewable irregularity. The applicant misconceived the nature of a review, and the application raised no new substantive issues. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.