Kesolofetse and Others v Impala Platinum Beperk (862/2004) [2006] ZANWHC 41 (8 June 2006)
- Citation
- [2006] ZANWHC 41
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North West High Court, Mafikeng
- Panel
- A A Landman
- Case number
- 862/2004
More details
- Court
- North West High Court, Mafikeng
- Panel
- A A Landman
- Case number
- 862/2004
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicants failed to provide any factual foundation for their claim of discrimination. No higher-paid employee was identified, and there was a complete lack of information regarding the procedures applicable to higher-paid employees for amending bank details. Consequently, the court held that there is no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
T Kesolofetse
Applicant Counsel: J L M Snijmann SCI F Motladi
Applicant Counsel: J L M Snijmann SCA G Fourie BK h/a Cash for Cash Financial Services
Applicant Counsel: J L M Snijmann SCImpala Platinum Beperk
Respondent Counsel: P G Cilliers03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment in Main Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicants have shown sufficient grounds for leave to appeal against the judgment in the main application.
- 02
Whether the respondent discriminated between lower-paid employees subject to the clock card system and higher-paid employees regarding the amendment of bank details.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants contend that the respondent discriminates between them (and other lower-paid employees subject to the clock card system) and higher-paid employees in respect of the procedures for amending bank details. They argue that this constitutes unfair discrimination and forms a valid ground for appeal.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintains that the applicants have not identified any higher-paid employee who was treated differently, nor have they provided any factual basis or information regarding what a higher-paid employee must do to amend their bank details. The respondent submits that the discrimination claim is unsubstantiated and does not warrant leave to appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal will only be granted if there is a reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different conclusion.
- 02
Harksen v Lane NO and Others 1998 (1) SA 300 (CC)
A party alleging discrimination must provide sufficient factual basis to support the claim.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to provide any factual foundation for their claim of discrimination. No higher-paid employee was identified, and there was a complete lack of information regarding the procedures applicable to higher-paid employees for amending bank details. Consequently, the court held that there is no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted the absence of evidence as fatal to the discrimination claim.
- The shifting emphasis in the applicants' submissions did not cure the lack of factual support.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
North West High Court, Mafikeng
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Ruling
IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINSIALE AFDELING)
SAAKNR. 862/2004
In die saak tussen:
A
T KESOLOFETSE EERSTE APPLIKANT
I
F MOTLADI TWEEDE APPLIKANT
D & A G FOURIE BK h/a CASH FOR CASH
FINANCIAL
SERVICES DERDE APPLIKANT
en
IMPALA PLATINUM
BEPERK RESPONDENT
UITSPRAAK
LANDMAN R
[1] Die applikante verlang verlof om teen die geheel van die uitspraak wat ek in die hoofaansoek op 7 Februarie 2006 gelewer het, te appelleer.
[2] Die gronde waarop verlof tot appèl versoek word, word in the aansoek uiteengesit.
[3] Die submissies ten opsigte van diskriminasie is weereens voorgehou maar met Šklemverskuiwing. Die applikante beweer dat die respondent onderskei en diskrimineer tussen die applikante (en ander laer besoldigde werknemers wat aan die klokkaartstelsel onderhewig is) en hoër besoldigde werknemers ten opsigte van die wysiginge van hul bankbesonderhede.
[4] Die submissie gaan nie op nie. Die feitlike onderbou is nie gelê nie. Die applikante het nie Šhoër besoldigde werknemer geidentifiseer nie. Bowendien is daar Šalgehele gebrek aan inligting ten opsigte wat Šhoër besoldigde werknemer moet doen ten einde sy of haar bankbesonderhede by die respondent te kan wysig.
[5] Ek is van mening dat Å ander hof nie redelikswys tot Å ander besluit sal raak nie en derhalwe word die aansoek met koste van die hand gewys.
___
A A LANDMAN
REGTER VAN DIE
HOOGGEREGSHOF
VERSKYNING:
VIR DIE APPLIKANTE : ADV
J L M SNIJMANN SC
VIR DIE RESPONDENT : ADV
P G CILLIERS
PROKUREURS:
VIR DIE APPLIKANTE : GERHARD MAREE
VIR DIE RESPONDENT : VAN ROOYEN TLHAPI & WESSELS
DATUM VAN VERHOOR : 2 JUNIE 2006
DATUM VAN UITSPRAAK : 8 JUNIE 2006
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.