Mopani Civils (Pty) Ltd v Le Roux NO and Others (Application for Leave to Appeal) (JR362/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 138 (12 March 2025)
The Court found that the commissioner had properly considered and analysed the applicant's oral application for postponement, which was unsupported by evidence. Upon refusal, the applicant chose not to participate in the arbitration, resulting in uncontested evidence from the employee. The commissioner evaluated...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] ZALCJHB 138
- Parties
- Applicant: Mopani Civils (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Yolanda Le Roux N.O.; Respondent: The Bargaining Council for the Civil Engineering Industry (BCCEI); Respondent: Tshepo Makiti Mokgathi
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR362/23
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- Judges
- M Makhura
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Review of Arbitration Award, Test for Reasonableness, Postponement of Arbitration, Uncontested Evidence
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mopani Civils (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Yolanda Le Roux N.O.
Respondent
The Bargaining Council for the Civil Engineering Industry (BCCEI)
Respondent
Tshepo Makiti Mokgathi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons for the Labour Appeal Court to hear the appeal.
- 3 Whether the Court erred in its review of the arbitration proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court found that the commissioner had properly considered and analysed the applicant's oral application for postponement, which was unsupported by evidence. Upon refusal, the applicant chose not to participate in the arbitration, resulting in uncontested evidence from the employee. The commissioner evaluated this evidence and found the dismissal unfair, awarding compensation. The Labour Court, sitting on review, applied the reasonableness test and determined that the applicant's challenge to the award was meritless. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed as it presented no reasonable prospect of success nor any compelling reason for further consideration.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: JR362/23
In the matter between:
MOPANI CIVILS (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
LE ROUX, YOLANDA N.O.
First Respondent
THE BARGAINING COUNCIL FOR THE
CIVIL ENGINEERING INDUSTRY (BCCEI)
Second Respondent
TSHEPO MAKITI MOKGATHI
Third Respondent
Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: 12 March 2025
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MAKHURA, J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal the whole of the judgment and order handed down on 11 December 2024 in terms of which this Court dismissed the applicant’s review application. The leave to appeal application, as with the main application, is unopposed.
[2] The question in these proceedings is whether the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or whether there are other compelling
reasons that warrant the appeal being heard.[1]
[3] The applicant’s primary case is that the Court erred in not considering, scrutinising and evaluating the evidence tendered at the arbitration proceedings. There is no merit in this application.
[4] The commissioner had considered, analysed and applied his mind to the applicant’s application for postponement, which was brought orally without any evidence. Having refused the postponement application, the applicant elected not to participate in the
arbitration proceedings. The employee proceeded to give evidence, which was uncontested. The commissioner considered and analysed the employee’s contested evidence before declaring the dismissal unfair and awarding compensation. This Court was sitting on review, not appeal and therefore had to apply the well established test of reasonableness. The applicant’s attempt to upset the award was feeble and completely meritless.
[5] The appeal would have no reasonable prospect of success and it would not present any arguable point of law. There are no other compelling reasons to burden the Labour Appeal Court with a doomed application such as the present. The application for leave to appeal stands to be dismissed.
[6] In the premises, the following order is made:
Order
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
M. Makhura
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
[1] Superior Court Act 10 of 2013. Section 17(1) provides that: “Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that – (a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or (ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under
consideration…”
[1] Superior Court Act 10 of 2013. Section 17(1) provides that: “Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that –
(a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under
consideration…”