SACCAWU obo Ramonthle and Others v Sun City (JS1116/2013) [2018] ZALCJHB 53 (8 February 2018)

SACCAWU obo Ramonthle and Others v Sun City (JS1116/2013) [2018] ZALCJHB 53 (8 February 2018)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The grounds for appeal were a repetition of trial arguments and did not identify any error in the judgment or in the exercise of discretion regarding costs. The claim of a novel legal issue was rejected, as it was not pleaded and did not meet the threshold for novelty. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 53
Parties
Applicant: SACCAWU obo Ramonthle and 13 Others; Respondent: Sun City
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 February 2018
Case Number
JS1116/2013
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Award, Novel Question of Law, Schedule 8 Item 6, Discretion in Costs
Labour Law Leave to Appeal Costs Award Novel Question of Law Schedule 8 Item 6 Discretion in Costs

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SACCAWU obo Ramonthle and 13 Others

Applicant

Sun City

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects that another court could reach a different conclusion.
  2. 2 Whether the court erred in awarding costs against the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the matter involves a novel question of law warranting appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The grounds for appeal were a repetition of trial arguments and did not identify any error in the judgment or in the exercise of discretion regarding costs. The claim of a novel legal issue was rejected, as it was not pleaded and did not meet the threshold for novelty. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

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