Marcopolo South Africa v Motor Industry Bargaining Council and Others (JR674/22) [2024] ZALCJHB 464 (18 November 2024)

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

Not reportable

Case No: JR 674/22

In the matter between:

MARCOPOLO SOUTH AFRICA Applicant and MOTOR INDUSTRY BARGAINING COUNCIL First Respondent SHAAM FRIEDMAN N.O. Second Respondent NUMSA obo OBED MULAUDZI Third Respondent

Decided in Chambers:

Delivered: This ruling was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal representatives by email and publication on the Labour Court’s website. The date for hand-down is deemed to be on 18 November 2024

RULING: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

TLHOTLHALEMAJE, J

[1] The applicant’s application to review and set aside the arbitration award issued by the second respondent (Arbitrator) in favour of the Third Respondent (Mr Obed Mulaudzi) was dismissed in terms of a judgment and order delivered by this Court on 16 September 2024.

[2] The Applicant seeks leave to appeal against the whole of or specific portions of the judgment and order of this Court. The third respondent has opposed the application.

[3] The submissions in support of the leave to appeal were delivered some two days outside the stipulated time periods set out in Rule 67(5) of the Rules of Court, and condonation was sought in that regard. The delay in the delivery of the written submissions was about two days. Given the insignificant extent of the delay and the explanation proffered in that regard, the Court holds the view that the interests of justice dictate that the non-compliance with the time frames be condoned.

[4] The grounds and submissions upon which leave to appeal as well as the opposing submissions of the parties are set out in their respective papers before the Court. The Court deems it unnecessary to regurgitate the history of the dispute, the grounds upon which a review was sought and the reasons for the order granted for the purposes of this ruling, as these issues are succinctly set out in the main judgment.

[5] The test when leave to appeal is sought need no introduction nor rehashing. It can only be reiterated that under Section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act[1], leave to appeal may only be granted where the Judge or Judges concerned are of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard,

including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration.

[6] Having had regard to the parties’ submissions for and against the application for leave to appeal, and further having reflected on my judgment, I hold the view that the applicant’s submissions in seeking leave to appeal do not meet the stringent threshold set out in section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant’s submissions do not disclose any reasonable prospects that the Labour Appeal Court would treat the factual matrix of the facts leading to the dispute between the parties differently, nor do the grounds upon which leave to appeal is sought raise any novel issues of law compelling the matter to be heard by the Labour Appeal Court.

[7] Against the above conclusions, it follows that the application ought to fail. I have further had regard to the requirements of law and fairness and hold the view that a costs order is not warranted in this case.

[8] Accordingly, the following order is made;

Order:

1. The late filing of the applicant’s submissions in support of the application for leave to appeal is condoned.

2. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

3. There is no order as to costs.

Edwin Tlhotlhalemaje

Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa

[1]Act 10 of 2013.