Mabobo v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J 586/2021) [2021] ZALCJHB 233 (16 August 2021)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish any reasonable prospect of success on appeal or any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The allegations of bias were unsupported by factual evidence, as the record indicated that all proceedings were conducted online via Zoom due to Covid-19...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] ZALCJHB 233
- Parties
- Applicant: Rhulani Mabobo; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration; Respondent: Manyano Mdakane; Respondent: South African Revenue Services
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- J 586/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Dismissal of Initial Application
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Van Niekerk
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Costs Order, Judicial Bias, Superior Courts Act Section 18
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rhulani Mabobo
Applicant
Commission for Conciliation, Mediation & Arbitration
Respondent
Manyano Mdakane
Respondent
South African Revenue Services
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Dismissal of Initial Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal.
- 2 Whether there is any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.
- 3 Whether allegations of judicial bias are substantiated.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to establish any reasonable prospect of success on appeal or any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The allegations of bias were unsupported by factual evidence, as the record indicated that all proceedings were conducted online via Zoom due to Covid-19 restrictions. The court concluded that there was no merit in the application for leave to appeal and no reason to deprive the third respondent of its costs.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(HELD AT JOHANNESBURG)
Not reportable
Case No: J 586/2021
In the matter between:
RHULANI MABOBO Applicant
and
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION & ARBITRATION First Respondent
MANYANO MDAKANE Second Respondent
SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICES Third Respondent
Date of judgment: 16 August 2021. Judgment delivered by email
RULING: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
VAN NIEKERK J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment delivered by this court in which an application for various orders filed by the applicant was dismissed, with costs.
[2] I do not intend to burden this ruling with a repetition of the facts averred by the applicant, or the submissions made at the time of the hearing. These are dealt with fully in the judgment against which leave to appeal is sought.
[3] The test to be applied is that contained in section 18 of the Superior Courts Act. The court may grant leave to appeal if the appeal would have some reasonable prospect of success, or if there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. In my view, neither condition applies. The applicant has failed to advance any compelling reason why leave to appeal should be granted.
[4] In so far as the applicant relies on averments of bias in support of the present application, there is no factual basis laid to support this contention. To the extent that the applicant suggests that a meeting was held with the third respondent’s counsel in Chambers in circumstances where the applicant was not present, the record will reflect that the entire proceeding was conducted on-line, via the Zoom platform, on account of Covid-related restrictions.
[5] There is no merit in the present application, nor is there any reason to deprive the third respondent of its costs.
I make the following order:
1. The application is dismissed, with costs.
Andre van Niekerk
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa