Maseko v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1282/10) [2017] ZALCJHB 79 (8 March 2017)

Maseko v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1282/10) [2017] ZALCJHB 79 (8 March 2017)

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to meet the demanding standard required to declare a litigant vexatious under rule 11. The review application was not found to be without merit, and the applicant's litigation history did not justify such a declaration. Furthermore, the alternative claim for payment of outstanding legal fees or provision of security for costs was considered overly harsh, as it would effectively deny the applicant the right to challenge his dismissal. The court found no reasonable prospect that another judge would reach a different conclusion, and no compelling reason to grant leave to appeal.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 79
Parties
Applicant: Andile Aaron Maseko; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Bhekinhlanhla Stanley Mthethwa N.O.; Respondent: Sasol Infrachem (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 March 2017
Case Number
JR1282/10
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rule 11 Application in Review Proceedings
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Everett
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigant, Security for Costs, Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Automatically Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Vexatious Litigant Security for Costs Leave to Appeal Condonation Automatically Unfair Dismissal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andile Aaron Maseko

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Bhekinhlanhla Stanley Mthethwa N.O.

Respondent

Sasol Infrachem (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rule 11 Application in Review Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant under rule 11.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should be ordered to pay outstanding legal fees or provide security for costs before continuing litigation.
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the dismissal of the rule 11 application.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to meet the demanding standard required to declare a litigant vexatious under rule 11. The review application was not found to be without merit, and the applicant's litigation history did not justify such a declaration. Furthermore, the alternative claim for payment of outstanding legal fees or provision of security for costs was considered overly harsh, as it would effectively deny the applicant the right to challenge his dismissal. The court found no reasonable prospect that another judge would reach a different conclusion, and no compelling reason to grant leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.