Pillay and Others v Mobile Telephone Networks (Proprietary) Limited (D377/13) [2018] ZALCD 1 (7 February 2018)

Pillay and Others v Mobile Telephone Networks (Proprietary) Limited (D377/13) [2018] ZALCD 1 (7 February 2018)

The judge found that the issue raised in the application for leave to appeal justifies consideration by another court and that there is a reasonable prospect that another court might reach a different decision. The judge was not satisfied that oral submissions were necessary, particularly given the delay in the application being placed before the court. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted based on the written submissions alone.

Citation
[2018] ZALCD 1
Parties
Applicant: Somahkhanti Pillay & 37 Others; Respondent: Mobile Telephone Networks (Proprietary) Limited
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 February 2018
Case Number
D377/13
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 4 May 2017.
Outcome
Leave to appeal is granted. Oral submissions are not permitted.
Judges
D H Gush
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospect of Success, Oral Submissions
Labour Law Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospect of Success Oral Submissions

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Somahkhanti Pillay & 37 Others

Applicant

Mobile Telephone Networks (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 4 May 2017.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment handed down on 4 May 2017.
  2. 2 Whether oral submissions are necessary for the application for leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found that the issue raised in the application for leave to appeal justifies consideration by another court and that there is a reasonable prospect that another court might reach a different decision. The judge was not satisfied that oral submissions were necessary, particularly given the delay in the application being placed before the court. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted based on the written submissions alone.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is granted. Oral submissions are not permitted.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted to the respondent.
  • The application for oral submissions is refused.