Molefe v MMARAWU and Others (JR1347/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 337 (13 September 2017)

Molefe v MMARAWU and Others (JR1347/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 337 (13 September 2017)

After considering the application for leave to appeal and the written submissions, the court found that the grounds raised by the third respondent were already addressed in the reasons for the original judgment. The court was not persuaded that any appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success, nor were there any other compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal. The application was made within the prescribed time limits, but failed to meet the statutory threshold under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and no order as to costs was made.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 337
Parties
Applicant: Reuben Molefe; Respondent: MMARAWU; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: South African Airways (SOC) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2017
Case Number
JR1347/14
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Review Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Coetzee
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Review of Arbitration Award, Costs Order, Reasonable Prospect of Success
Labour Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Review of Arbitration Award Costs Order Reasonable Prospect of Success

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reuben Molefe

Applicant

MMARAWU

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

South African Airways (SOC) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Review Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal meets the statutory threshold for reasonable prospects of success.
  2. 2 Whether there are compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.
  3. 3 Whether a costs order should be made in the leave to appeal application.

Ratio Decidendi

After considering the application for leave to appeal and the written submissions, the court found that the grounds raised by the third respondent were already addressed in the reasons for the original judgment. The court was not persuaded that any appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success, nor were there any other compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal. The application was made within the prescribed time limits, but failed to meet the statutory threshold under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and no order as to costs was made.

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.