NEHAWU obo Hoho v CCMA and Others (PR265/18) [2019] ZAECPEHC 56 (3 September 2019)

NEHAWU obo Hoho v CCMA and Others (PR265/18) [2019] ZAECPEHC 56 (3 September 2019)

The applicant failed to meet the statutory threshold for leave to appeal as set out in section 17 of the Superior Courts Act. The grounds advanced were not clearly expressed and merely repeated the review grounds already considered and dismissed. The applicant misunderstood the distinction between review and appeal, and did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The requirements of law and fairness justify a costs order, but not for two counsel.

Citation
[2019] ZAECPEHC 56
Parties
Applicant: NEHAWU obo Kerr Hoho; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Mzamo Mama N.O.; Respondent: Secretary EC Legislature
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 September 2019
Case Number
PR265/18
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment Dismissing Review Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Review of Ccma Award, Costs in Labour Court
Labour Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Review of Ccma Award Costs in Labour Court

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NEHAWU obo Kerr Hoho

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

Mzamo Mama N.O.

Respondent

Secretary EC Legislature

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment Dismissing Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the grounds for leave to appeal are properly articulated and have merit.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of law and fairness justify a costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to meet the statutory threshold for leave to appeal as set out in section 17 of the Superior Courts Act. The grounds advanced were not clearly expressed and merely repeated the review grounds already considered and dismissed. The applicant misunderstood the distinction between review and appeal, and did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The requirements of law and fairness justify a costs order, but not for two counsel.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed, with costs.