Malapane v Glencore Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd (JR603/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 160 (3 May 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZALCJHB 160
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Malindi
- Case number
- JR603/15
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Malindi
- Case number
- JR603/15
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court considered the written submissions of both parties and determined that there exists a reasonable prospect of success on appeal regarding the grounds raised by the applicant. The grounds include the alleged failure to provide reasons for remitting the matter to the CCMA, the reversal of the Commissioner's credibility finding, and the finding of guilt on a charge not proffered. On this basis, the Court granted leave to appeal against the whole judgment and order handed down on 5 January 2017.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal against the whole judgment and order is granted.
Orders
- Leave to appeal against the whole judgment and order handed down on 5 January 2017 under case number JR603/2015 is granted.
- Costs shall be costs in the appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
Lethokgo Abram Malapane
Applicant Counsel: Mr SG SeepamoreGlencore Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Mr Doctor Cithi03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Handed Down on 5 January 2017.
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Court erred in remitting the matter to the CCMA for arbitration de novo without providing reasons for not substituting its own decision.
- 02
Whether the Court improperly reversed the Commissioner's adverse credibility finding against the employer's only witness.
- 03
Whether the Court found Malapane guilty of a charge not proffered against him.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that the Court failed to provide reasons for remitting the matter to the CCMA for arbitration de novo instead of substituting its own decision. The applicant further argues that the Court improperly reversed the Commissioner's adverse credibility finding against the employer's only witness, which should be left to the trier of fact. Additionally, the applicant submits that the Court found him guilty of a charge that was not formally brought against him.
- Respondent
- The respondent opposes the application for leave to appeal, maintaining that the Court's decision to remit the matter for arbitration de novo was justified and that the reversal of the credibility finding was within the Court's discretion. The respondent asserts that the applicant was found guilty based on the evidence presented and that the grounds for appeal lack merit.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma 2009 (2) SA 277 (SCA)
Credibility findings made by a trier of fact should not be disturbed on appeal unless there are compelling reasons.
- 02
Section 145 of the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995
A reviewing court may remit a matter for arbitration de novo or substitute its own decision, but must provide reasons for its choice.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court considered the written submissions of both parties and determined that there exists a reasonable prospect of success on appeal regarding the grounds raised by the applicant. The grounds include the alleged failure to provide reasons for remitting the matter to the CCMA, the reversal of the Commissioner's credibility finding, and the finding of guilt on a charge not proffered. On this basis, the Court granted leave to appeal against the whole judgment and order handed down on 5 January 2017.
Obiter and limits
- The issue of whether a court should substitute its own decision or remit a matter for arbitration de novo remains a significant consideration in review proceedings.
- Credibility findings are generally respected by appellate courts unless there is a clear misdirection or error.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal against the whole judgment and order is granted.
- Leave to appeal against the whole judgment and order handed down on 5 January 2017 under case number JR603/2015 is granted.
- Costs shall be costs in the appeal.
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
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case no: JR603/15
In the matter between:
LETHOKGO
ABRAM MALAPANE
Applicant
and
GLENCORE OPERATIONS SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD
Respondent
Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: 03 May 2017
JUDGMENT
ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MALINDI AJ
[1]. The Applicant, who is the First Respondent in the review application, Lethokgo Abram Malapane (Malapane), applies for leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment and order of this Court which was handed down on 5 January 2017.
[2]. The Applicant for review, Glencore Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd (Goedgevonden Colliery) (the employer) opposes the application.
[3]. The main grounds of appeal are that:
3.1. the Court erred in remitting the matter back to the CCMA for arbitration de novo before a different Commissioner without giving reasons why it could not substitute its own decision;
3.2. the Court reversed an adverse credibility finding made by the Commissioner against the employer’s only witness whereas credibility findings may not be disturbed as they are to be decided by the trier of the facts; and
3.3. that the Court found Malapane guilty of a charge that was not proffered against him.
[4]. I have considered the written submissions by both parties and am of the view that there exists a reasonable prospect of success on appeal and therefore that leave to appeal should be granted.
[5]. In the circumstances I make the following order:
1. Leave to appeal against the whole judgment and order of the judgment which was handed down on 5 January 2017 under case number JR 603/2015 is granted.
2. Costs shall be costs in the appeal.
______
Malindi, AJ
Acting Judge of the Labour Court
Submissions:
For Applicants: Mr SG Seepamore of Moshoana Mabena Mogane Inc
Tel: (011) 262-0406/9
Fax: (011) 262-0404
For Respondent: Mr Doctor Cithi of Mervyn Taback Inc
Tel: (011) 358-7700
Fax: 0867712628
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.