Mathebula v Sibanye Gold Limited and Others (JR212/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 203 (29 May 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZALCJHB 203
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- D H Gush
- Case number
- JR212/14
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- D H Gush
- Case number
- JR212/14
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different decision. The condonation application for late filing was granted as there was no opposition. However, the substantive application for leave to appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Orders
- The applicant’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal is granted.
02
Material facts
Parties
Joseph Mathebula
ApplicantSibanye Gold Limited
RespondentCommission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
RespondentLindokuhle Dlamini N.O.
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Labour Appeal Court
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has shown reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different decision.
- 02
Whether condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal should be granted.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that the judgment handed down on 22 February 2017 was incorrect and seeks leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court. The application for leave to appeal was filed late, accompanied by a condonation application. Written submissions were provided in support of the application.
- Respondent
- The first respondent opposes the application for leave to appeal, arguing that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different decision. The respondent does not oppose the condonation application.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 166(1) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
Leave to appeal will only be granted if there is a reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different conclusion.
- 02
National Union of Mineworkers v Council for Mineral Technology [1999] 3 BLLR 209 (LAC)
Condonation may be granted where the interests of justice so require and where there is no opposition to the condonation application.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different decision. The condonation application for late filing was granted as there was no opposition. However, the substantive application for leave to appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- The applicant’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal is granted.
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: JR212/14
In the matter between:
JOSEPH
MATHEBULA
Applicant
and
SIBANYE
GOLD LIMITED
First Respondent
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION Second Respondent
LINDOKUHLE DLAMINI N.O.
Third Respondent
Heard: in Chambers
Delivered: 29 May 2017
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
GUSH J
Introduction
[1] The applicant applies for leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court against the judgment in this matter handed down on 22 February 2017.
[2] The applicant filed its notice of application for leave to appeal on 20 March 2017 (accompanied by a condonation application regarding the late filing of the application for leave to appeal) and written submissions 19 May 2017.
[3] The first respondent filed its opposition to the application for leave to appeal on 18 May 2017.
[4] There is no opposition to the condonation application and condonation is granted.
[5] I am not persuaded that that there is a reasonable prospect of another court coming to a different decision.
Order
[6] I accordingly make the following order:
1. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
_____
D H Gush
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africaaregfff
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.