Registrar of Labour Relations v Sino N.O (J2896/2018) [2024] ZALCJHB 405 (16 October 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZALCJHB 405
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Connie Prinsloo
- Case number
- J2896/2018
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Connie Prinsloo
- Case number
- J2896/2018
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the applicant had raised important questions regarding the powers of the Registrar of Labour Relations and the administrator of a trade union. These questions are of sufficient importance to constitute a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard, as contemplated by section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act. The court was satisfied that this matter is not merely a factual dispute but involves significant legal issues that merit consideration by an appellate court. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal is granted. No order as to costs.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is granted.
- There is no order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Registrar of Labour Relations
ApplicantSipho Eric Sono N.O (Administrator of the Chemical, Energy, Paper, Printing, Wood and Allied Workers’ Union)
RespondentChemical, Energy, Paper, Printing, Wood and Allied Workers’ Union (Under administration)
RespondentAlfred Tseki
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Orders Delivered on 14 August 2024.
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
- 02
Whether there is a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard under section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act.
- 03
Whether important questions regarding the powers of the Registrar and the administrator of a trade union justify granting leave to appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that the judgment and orders handed down on 14 August 2024 were incorrect in law and fact, and that another court would likely reach a different conclusion. The grounds for appeal focused on the interpretation of the powers of the Registrar of Labour Relations and the administrator of a trade union, arguing that these issues are of sufficient importance to warrant appellate consideration.
- Respondent
- The first and second respondents opposed the application, submitting that the applicant had not demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal and that the factual and legal findings of the court a quo were sound. They argued that there was no legitimate dispute on the law or facts that would justify leave to appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal should be granted only if there are reasonable prospects of success or if there is a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the applicant had raised important questions regarding the powers of the Registrar of Labour Relations and the administrator of a trade union. These questions are of sufficient importance to constitute a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard, as contemplated by section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act. The court was satisfied that this matter is not merely a factual dispute but involves significant legal issues that merit consideration by an appellate court. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted.
Obiter and limits
- Appeals should be limited to matters where there is a reasonable prospect that the factual matrix could receive a different treatment or where there is some legitimate dispute on the law.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal is granted. No order as to costs.
- Leave to appeal is granted.
- There is no order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Ruling
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case number J 2896/18
In the matter between:
THE REGISTRAR OF LABOUR RELATIONS. Applicant and
SIPHO ERIC SONO N.O (Administrator of the Chemical, Energy, Paper, Printing, Wood and Allied Workers’ Union) First Respondent CHEMICAL, ENERGY, PAPER, PRINTING, WOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION (Under administration) Second Respondent
ALFRED
TSEKI Third Respondent
Decided: In Chambers
Judgment: 16 October 2024
This judgment was handed down electronically by consent of the parties by circulation to them via email. The date for hand-down is deemed to be on 4 October 2024.
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
PRINSLOO J.
[1] The Applicant filed an application for leave to appeal against the judgment and orders of this Court handed down on 14 August 2024. The First and Second Respondents opposed the application.
[2] I have considered the grounds for appeal raised by the Applicant as well as the submissions made in support and in opposition thereof and I do not intend to repeat those herein.
[3] It is trite that to be entitled to leave to appeal, an applicant in the application for leave to appeal must satisfy this Court that it has reasonable prospects of success on appeal and that based on the facts and the law another court would arrive at a conclusion different than the one reached by the Court a quo. Appeals should be limited to matters where there is a reasonable prospect that the factual matrix could receive a different treatment of where there is some legitimate dispute on the law.
[4] Section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act[1] provides that leave to appeal may also be granted if there is a compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. In casu important questions relating to the powers of the Applicant and an administrator of a trade union are raised which require the appeal to be heard.
[5] In my view this is a case where the appeal should be heard.
Order
[6] I therefore make the following order:
1. Leave to appeal is granted.
2. There is no order as to costs.
Connie Prinsloo
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
[1] Act 10 of 2013.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.