Makibinyane v Nuclear Corporation of South Africa (NECSA) and Another [2009] ZALC 85; JS51/08 (5 March 2009)

Makibinyane v Nuclear Corporation of South Africa (NECSA) and Another [2009] ZALC 85; JS51/08 (5 March 2009)

The court found that Benjamin Johannes Steynberg was more suitable for the position than the applicant. It held that another court was unlikely to reach a different conclusion based on the facts and evidence presented. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] ZALC 85
Parties
Applicant: Lefadi Lucas Makibinyane; Respondent: Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (NECSA); Respondent: Pelchem (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Case Number
JS51/08
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal: Reasons for Refusal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Judges
Pillay D
Legal Topics
Appointment of Employee, Leave to Appeal, Suitability for Position
Labour Law Appointment of Employee Leave to Appeal Suitability for Position

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lefadi Lucas Makibinyane

Applicant

Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (NECSA)

Respondent

Pelchem (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal: Reasons for Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether another court would reasonably reach a different conclusion regarding the suitability of the appointed candidate.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted in light of the facts presented.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Benjamin Johannes Steynberg was more suitable for the position than the applicant. It held that another court was unlikely to reach a different conclusion based on the facts and evidence presented. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.