Klaas v Standard Bank of South Africa and Others (P530/2012) [2014] ZALCPE 29 (2 October 2014)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The grounds for appeal, including alleged errors in factual findings, application of the Heroldt test, and double jeopardy, were considered but found unpersuasive. The court emphasized...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] ZALCPE 29
- Parties
- Applicant: Siviwe Klaas; Respondent: Standard Bank of South Africa; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Jacobus du Plessis N.O
- Court
- Labour Court Port Elizabeth
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- P530/2012
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Review
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- Prinsloo
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospect of Success, Review of Arbitration Award, Double Jeopardy, Application of Heroldt Test
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Siviwe Klaas
Applicant
Standard Bank of South Africa
Respondent
The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Respondent
Jacobus du Plessis N.O
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects that another court could reach a different conclusion.
- 2 Whether the Labour Court erred in its factual and legal findings, including the application of the Heroldt test and consideration of double jeopardy.
- 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted in light of the grounds raised.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The grounds for appeal, including alleged errors in factual findings, application of the Heroldt test, and double jeopardy, were considered but found unpersuasive. The court emphasized the importance of conserving judicial resources and reiterated that leave to appeal should only be granted where there is a reasonable prospect of success. As none of the factors warranting leave to appeal were present, the application was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
47 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH
JUDGMENT
Not reportable
Case no: P 530/2012
In the matter between:
SIVIWE KLAAS
Applicant
and
STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA
First Respondent
THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION
Second Respondent
JACOBUS DU PLESSIS N.O
Third Respondent
Decided : In Chambers
Judgment : 02 October 2014
Summary : Application for leave to appeal, no prospect that another Court could come to a different conclusion, application is dismissed.
JUDGMENT-APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
PRINSLOO, AJ
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of this Court handed down on 22 July 2014 in terms of which an arbitration award was reviewed and set aside and substituted with an order that the Applicant’s (the Third Respondent in the review application) dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair. Leave to appeal is sought against the whole of the judgment and part of the orders granted by the Court.
[2] The Applicant listed various grounds where this Court had erred in its finding. I do not intend to repeat the various grounds , suffices to say that I have considered these grounds. In summary the grounds are that the Court erred in making certain factual findings, erred in failing to correctly apply the test as enunciated in the Heroldt v Nedbank[1], erred in not considering the issue of double jeopardy and erred in making certain legal conclusions.
[3] The application is opposed. In summary the First Respondent’s submissions are that the Applicant is canvassing a case that was not canvassed during the review proceedings, there was no review filed by the Applicant and the issues before Court were confined to those raised in the review papers, the Court’s findings on the facts and law are not appealable and there is no reasonable prospect that the Labour Appeal Court may reach a different conclusion on the grounds for appeal as raised.
The test in the application for leave to appeal
[4] It is trite that there is no automatic right of appeal against a judgment of the Labour Court. This is clear from section 166(1) of the Labour Relations Act[2] (hereinafter referred to as the “the LRA”) which provides that any party to any proceedings before the Labour Court may apply to the Labour Court for leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court against any final judgment or final order of the Labour Court. In order to be entitled to leave to appeal, an applicant in an application for leave to appeal must satisfy this Court that there is a “reasonable prospect that another court could come to a different conclusion”. (See Woolworths Ltd v Matthews[3].)
[5] The test is not whether or not there is a possibility that another court could come to a different conclusion, the test is whether or not there is a reasonable prospect that another court could come to a different conclusion. In Westing House Break and Equipment (Pty) Ltd v Bilger Engineering (Pty) Ltd[4] the Court reiterated the general principle that in order for an applicant for leave to appeal to succeed, the applicant must demonstrate that it has a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. It was also stated that an appeal should be allowed where the matter
is of great importance or where the matter is of public importance or where the court is of the view that the decision might affect other questions. (See in this regard Moller v Keimoes School Committee and Another[5])
[6] In casu and in view of the grounds for appeal raised by the Applicant, I am not convinced that there are any prospects that another court might come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by this Court.
[7] I am not persuaded that the Applicant has made out a case for leave to appeal, that any of the factors set out supra are present or that the Applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal and scarce judicial resources should not be spent on an appeal that lacks merit.
[8] The Supreme Court of Appeal in Zweni v Minister of Law and Order[6] held in respect of the jurisdictional requirements for a civil appeal:
”Leave is granted if there are reasonable prospects of success. So much is trite.”
[9] The Supreme Court of Appeal held in in Dexgroup (Pty) Ltd v Trustco Group[7] that:
” The need to obtain leave to appeal is a valuable tool in ensuring that scarce judicial resources are not spent on appeals that lack merit. It should in this case have been deployed by refusing leave to appeal.”
[10] Having found that the Applicant has not made out a case for the granting of the leave to appeal and that he has no prospects of success on appeal, I make the following order:
10.1 The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
20.2There is no order as to costs.
______________
Prinsloo, AJ
Acting Judge of the Labour Court
[1]
[2] Act 66 of 1995
[3] [1999] 3 BLLR 288 (LC)
[4] 1986 (2) SA 555 (A)
[5] [1911] AD 585)
[6] 1993 (1) SA 523 (A).
[7] Unreported judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal (687/12) [2013] ZASCA 120 (20 September 2013).