Molupe v Sibanye Gold Limited (Leave to Appeal) (JR 2319 /2021) [2023] ZALCJHB 321 (15 November 2023)

Molupe v Sibanye Gold Limited (Leave to Appeal) (JR 2319 /2021) [2023] ZALCJHB 321 (15 November 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the stringent test for leave to appeal, as he did not demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the exceptions. The applicant's submissions did not address the findings made by the court, nor did they raise any legitimate dispute on the law or factual matrix. The court noted that the applicant's claim under the Employment Equity Act was not properly pleaded, lacked conciliation by the CCMA, and was premised on an employment relationship that had already been found not to exist by the CCMA. The applicant's allegations of discrimination against the court were unfounded and contemptuous....

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 321
Parties
Applicant: Rathipe Traiverse Molupe; Respondent: Sibanye Gold Limited
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 November 2023
Case Number
JR 2319 /2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Exceptions
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Exceptions, Employment Equity Act, Unfair Dismissal, Jurisdictional Ruling
Labour Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Exceptions Employment Equity Act Unfair Dismissal Jurisdictional Ruling

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rathipe Traiverse Molupe

Applicant

Sibanye Gold Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Exceptions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion on the exceptions decided.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's grounds for appeal address the findings made by the court regarding the exceptions.
  3. 3 Whether there is any legitimate dispute on the law or factual matrix warranting leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the stringent test for leave to appeal, as he did not demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the exceptions. The applicant's submissions did not address the findings made by the court, nor did they raise any legitimate dispute on the law or factual matrix. The court noted that the applicant's claim under the Employment Equity Act was not properly pleaded, lacked conciliation by the CCMA, and was premised on an employment relationship that had already been found not to exist by the CCMA. The applicant's allegations of discrimination against the court were unfounded and contemptuous....

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

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