Mbatha v Sibanye Gold Property Division and Others (JR46/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 146 (13 April 2018)

Mbatha v Sibanye Gold Property Division and Others (JR46/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 146 (13 April 2018)

The court found that the applicant failed to raise cogent grounds for leave to appeal, as the application was fraught with repetition and ambiguities. The issues raised had already been dealt with in the arbitration and the main judgment. There were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Condonation for the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 146
Parties
Applicant: Senzo Mbatha; Respondent: Sibanye Gold Property Division; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Larry Shear N.O.
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 April 2018
Case Number
JR46/15
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; condonation granted; no order as to costs.
Judges
MC Mamosebo
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Review of Arbitration Award, Costs in Labour Court
Labour Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Condonation Review of Arbitration Award Costs in Labour Court

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Senzo Mbatha

Applicant

Sibanye Gold Property Division

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Larry Shear N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of submissions by the first respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the grounds for leave to appeal are cogent and not repetitive or ambiguous.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to raise cogent grounds for leave to appeal, as the application was fraught with repetition and ambiguities. The issues raised had already been dealt with in the arbitration and the main judgment. There were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Condonation for the late filing of the first respondent’s submissions was granted as the delay was minimal and unopposed. The court exercised its discretion not to award costs against the applicant, considering fairness and the potential chilling effect on access to justice.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Condonation is granted for the late filing of submissions by the first respondent.
  • The application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order delivered on 15 November 2017 is dismissed.