Maestro Housing (Pty) Ltd v Gunn and Others (JR 3095/11) [2015] ZALCJHB 34 (13 February 2015)
- Citation
- [2015] ZALCJHB 34
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Cele
- Case number
- JR 3095/11
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Cele
- Case number
- JR 3095/11
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant’s grounds for leave to appeal merely repeated arguments already considered and rejected in the original judgment. The commissioner’s decision was one to which a reasonable decision-maker could come, and the case did not meet the threshold for judicial interference. There were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- No costs order is made.
02
Material facts
Parties
Maestro Housing (Pty) Ltd
ApplicantHarry Arthur Gunn
RespondentSello Naniso N.O.
RespondentCommission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion on the review of the arbitration award.
- 02
Whether the commissioner’s decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it.
- 03
Whether leave to appeal should be granted.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that the court erred in finding the second respondent’s arbitration award correct and argued that the commissioner’s decision was not one to which a reasonable decision-maker could come. The grounds for leave to appeal were based on matters canvassed at the hearing and addressed in the judgment.
- Respondent
- The respondents maintained that the commissioner’s decision was reasonable and that the court’s judgment was correct. They argued that there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Court practice
Leave to appeal is granted only if there are reasonable prospects that another court may come to a different conclusion.
- 02
Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and Others [2007] 12 BLLR 1097 (CC)
A court may interfere with a commissioner’s decision only if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant’s grounds for leave to appeal merely repeated arguments already considered and rejected in the original judgment. The commissioner’s decision was one to which a reasonable decision-maker could come, and the case did not meet the threshold for judicial interference. There were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that no costs order was made, consistent with the general approach in labour matters to avoid discouraging access to justice.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- No costs order is made.
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
Ruling
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO JR 3095/11
DATE: 13 FEBRUARY 2015
Not Reportable
In the matter between:
MAESTRO HOUSING (PTY) LTD.............................................APPLICANT
And
HARRY ARTHUR GUNN................................................1ST
RESPONDENT
SELLO NANISO N.O......................................................2ND
RESPONDENT
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION..............................3RD
RESPONDENT
Date of ruling: 13 February 2015
RULING: APPLICATION FOR
LEAVE TO APPEAL
CELE J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment delivered by this court on 30 September 2014, when the court dismissed with costs, an application to review and set aside an arbitration award made by the second respondent.
[2] The reasons for the judgment are recorded in the written judgment delivered by this court and I do intend to repeat them here.
[3] Leave to appeal is ordinarily granted if there are reasonable prospects that another court (in this instance, the Labour Appeal Court) may come to a different conclusion.
[4] The applicant has raised a number of grounds on which the leave to appeal is sought. I have considered the applicant’s submissions and those of the respondent. The applicant’s submissions relate to the matters that were canvassed at the hearing and dealt with in the judgment. To the extent that the applicant submits that the court erred in finding that the second respondent’s finding is correct, the commissioner’s decision was one to which a reasonable decision maker could come, thus precluding interference by the court. The court is empowered to interfere with a commissioner’s decision if and only if the decision the commissioner considers fair is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could come to. The present case does not fall into that category.
[5] It is in my view that there is no reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different conclusion.
I make the following order:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2. No costs order is made.
JUDGE OF THE LABOUR COURT
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.