PRASA v UTATU and Others (JR3053/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 290 (9 September 2015)

PRASA v UTATU and Others (JR3053/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 290 (9 September 2015)

The court found that there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the merits of the review and setting aside of the arbitration award. The concession by UTATU's counsel was properly made on the evidence, and the application for leave to appeal was framed in overly broad terms without explanation for the change in course. The request to reserve the right to amplify grounds of appeal was rejected as misguided, since a full ex tempore judgment had already been delivered and no further reasons were required. Additionally, the application for leave to appeal was brought out of time, with no application for condonation. These factors...

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 290
Parties
Applicant: PRASA; Respondent: UTATU; Respondent: TOKISO; Respondent: Frans Stassen N.O.
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 September 2015
Case Number
JR3053/12
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Labour Appeal Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
GA Fourie
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Condonation, Leave to Appeal, Sanction Interference
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Condonation Leave to Appeal Sanction Interference

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PRASA

Applicant

UTATU

Respondent

TOKISO

Respondent

Frans Stassen N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Labour Appeal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the review and setting aside of the arbitration award.
  2. 2 Whether the application for leave to appeal was properly brought within the prescribed time limits.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court should interfere with the sanction imposed by the arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the merits of the review and setting aside of the arbitration award. The concession by UTATU's counsel was properly made on the evidence, and the application for leave to appeal was framed in overly broad terms without explanation for the change in course. The request to reserve the right to amplify grounds of appeal was rejected as misguided, since a full ex tempore judgment had already been delivered and no further reasons were required. Additionally, the application for leave to appeal was brought out of time, with no application for condonation. These factors...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.