Qongwana v Arcelor Mittal (JR2601/18) [2019] ZALCJHB 379 (3 March 2019)

Qongwana v Arcelor Mittal (JR2601/18) [2019] ZALCJHB 379 (3 March 2019)

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the high threshold required for leave to appeal, as he did not demonstrate that another court would reasonably reach a different decision. The application was filed late without condonation, and the applicant failed to submit written submissions as required by the rules. The court considered all grounds of appeal and concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success. In the interests of fairness, no costs order was made against the applicant, who is an individual litigant.

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 379
Parties
Applicant: Fikile Walter Qongwana; Respondent: Arcelor Mittal
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 March 2019
Case Number
JR2601/18
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Review Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal is dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
H Cele
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Review of Arbitration Award, Prospects of Success
Labour Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Condonation Review of Arbitration Award Prospects of Success

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fikile Walter Qongwana

Applicant

Arcelor Mittal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Review Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there is a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard despite lack of prospects.
  3. 3 Whether the late filing of the application without condonation affects the merits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the high threshold required for leave to appeal, as he did not demonstrate that another court would reasonably reach a different decision. The application was filed late without condonation, and the applicant failed to submit written submissions as required by the rules. The court considered all grounds of appeal and concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success. In the interests of fairness, no costs order was made against the applicant, who is an individual litigant.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.