Khoza and Others v Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited and Others (JR247/16) [2021] ZALCJHB 22 (1 March 2021)

Khoza and Others v Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited and Others (JR247/16) [2021] ZALCJHB 22 (1 March 2021)

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the threshold for leave to appeal as set out in section 17 of the Superior Courts Act. The review application was filed out of time without an application for condonation, depriving the court of jurisdiction. Additionally, the record was not filed within the prescribed period, resulting in the application being deemed withdrawn under the practice manual. The applicants' arguments did not raise any legitimate dispute on the law or factual matrix that would justify granting leave to appeal.

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 22
Parties
Applicant: Thomas Khoza; Applicant: Armendo Chivavele; Applicant: Simon Mathebula; Applicant: David Shai; Respondent: Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited; Respondent: Commissioner Lungile Matshaka N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 March 2021
Case Number
JR247/16
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Condonation for Late Filing, Practice Manual Compliance, Leave to Appeal Threshold
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Condonation for Late Filing Practice Manual Compliance Leave to Appeal Threshold

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Khoza

Applicant

Armendo Chivavele

Applicant

Simon Mathebula

Applicant

David Shai

Applicant

Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited

Respondent

Commissioner Lungile Matshaka N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have met the threshold for leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the review application was properly before the court given late filing and lack of condonation.
  3. 3 Whether failure to file the record timeously resulted in deemed withdrawal under the practice manual.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the threshold for leave to appeal as set out in section 17 of the Superior Courts Act. The review application was filed out of time without an application for condonation, depriving the court of jurisdiction. Additionally, the record was not filed within the prescribed period, resulting in the application being deemed withdrawn under the practice manual. The applicants' arguments did not raise any legitimate dispute on the law or factual matrix that would justify granting leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.