Lakes Hotel and Conference (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and Others (J 468/2020) [2024] ZALCJHB 144 (27 March 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZALCJHB 144
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Prinsloo
- Case number
- J 468/2020
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Prinsloo
- Case number
- J 468/2020
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the order issued was an interim order, merely staying execution pending the outcome of a review application. It did not finally decide the merits of the review application or the respondent's submissions regarding its status. As such, the order is not a final judgment or order and is therefore not appealable under section 166(1) of the Labour Relations Act. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed as the statutory requirements for appealability were not met.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Lakes Hotel and Conference (Pty) Ltd
ApplicantCommission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA)
RespondentAubrey Motebang Mokoena N.O
RespondentMatebese Mathews Dikgale
RespondentThe Sheriff Benoni
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interim Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the interim order staying the writ of execution is appealable under section 166(1) of the Labour Relations Act.
- 02
Whether the application for leave to appeal was filed within the prescribed time period.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that the interim order merely stayed execution pending the review application and did not constitute a final judgment or order. Therefore, it is not appealable under section 166(1) of the Labour Relations Act.
- Respondent
- The respondent argues that the order affects his rights and should be appealable. He also submitted his application for leave to appeal after written reasons were provided, believing the order to be final and appealable.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 166(1) of the Labour Relations Act, No. 66 of 1995
There is no automatic right of appeal against a judgment of the Labour Court; only final judgments or orders are appealable.
- 02
Woolworths Ltd v Matthews [1999] 3 BLLR 288 (LC)
An applicant for leave to appeal must show a reasonable prospect that another court could reach a different conclusion.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the order issued was an interim order, merely staying execution pending the outcome of a review application. It did not finally decide the merits of the review application or the respondent's submissions regarding its status. As such, the order is not a final judgment or order and is therefore not appealable under section 166(1) of the Labour Relations Act. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed as the statutory requirements for appealability were not met.
Obiter and limits
- Section 166(1) of the Labour Relations Act makes it clear that only final judgments or orders are appealable.
- The prescribed time to file an application for leave to appeal runs from the date written reasons are provided.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
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.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Judgment
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case no: J 468/2020
In the matter between:
THE LAKES HOTEL AND CONFERENCE (PTY) LTD
Applicant
and
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
AND
ARBITRATION (CCMA)
First Respondent
AUBREY MOTEBANG MOKOENA N.O Second Respondent
MATEBESE
MATHEWS DIKGALE Third Respondent
THE
SHERRIF BENONI
Fourth
Respondent
Decided: In Chambers
Delivered: 27 March 2024
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' representatives by email. The date for hand-down is deemed
to be on 27 March 2024
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
PRINSLOO, J
[1] On 19 December 2023 this Court issued an order staying the writ of execution obtained by the Third Respondent (Respondent) on 22 March 2022 and suspending the enforcement of the arbitration award, pending the outcome of the review application filed under case number JR 355/22.
[2] The Respondent subsequently requested written reasons for the order, which reasons were provided on 7 February 2024.
[3] Rule 30(3) of the Rules of the Labour Court (the Rules) provides that an application for leave to appeal is to be made within 10 days after the date on which reasons are given. In casu the reasons were given on 7 February 2024 and the prescribed 10 days to file an application for leave to appeal expired on 21 February 2024. The Respondent filed his submissions in terms of Rule 30(3A) on 13 March 2024.
[4] I have considered the grounds for appeal and the submissions made in support thereof and I do not intend to repeat those herein.
The test for leave to appeal
[5] It is trite that there is no automatic right of appeal against a judgment of the Labour Court. This much is clear from section 166(1)
of the Labour Relations Act[1] (LRA) which provides that any party to any proceedings before the Labour Court may apply 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[2].
[6] Section 166(1) of the LRA makes it clear that only a final judgment or order is appealable.
[7] In casu an interim order was issued, which merely stayed execution pending the finalisation of a pending review application. Neither the merits of the review application nor any of the Respondent’s submissions regarding the status of the review application were not finally decided and no final judgment or order was granted. As a result, the provisions of section 166(1) do not apply and the order granted is not appealable.
[8] In the premises, the following order is made:
Order
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Connie Prinsloo
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
[1] No. 66 of 1995, as amended.
[2] See: Woolworths Ltd v Matthews [1999] 3 BLLR 288 (LC).
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.