SATAWU obo Mbano and Another v Moodyblue Trade Invest 14 (Pty) Ltd and Others (Leave to Appeal) (J1016/2019) [2023] ZALCJHB 129 (5 May 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] ZALCJHB 129
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Lallie
- Case number
- J1016/2019
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Lallie
- Case number
- J1016/2019
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Upon consideration of the papers filed of record, including the judgment sought to be appealed, the court finds that reasonable prospects of success exist that the Labour Appeal Court may construe differently the submissions on which the judgment is based and may find in favour of the applicants. The application for leave to appeal is therefore granted.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is granted.
- There is no order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
SATAWU obo Mandla Mbano & Tongayi Chenkenyu
ApplicantMoodyblue Trade Invest 14 (Pty) Ltd
RespondentNiel Damaras
RespondentDiana Smuts
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
- 02
Whether the court erred in finding that the applicant did not refute the first respondent's submissions regarding the transfer of transport services.
- 03
Whether the respondents acted mala fide in not reinstating the individual applicants.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that the court erred in finding that the applicant did not refute the first respondent's submissions that its transport services had been transferred to Hermis Transport. The applicant submits that, but for this error, the court would have found that the respondents acted mala fide in not reinstating the individual applicants, which would have resulted in judgment in their favour.
- Respondent
- The application for leave to appeal is unopposed; no arguments were submitted by the respondents.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Martin & East (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Mineworkers & others (2014) 35 ILJ 2399 (LAC)
The test for leave to appeal is whether the applicant has prospects of success on appeal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Upon consideration of the papers filed of record, including the judgment sought to be appealed, the court finds that reasonable prospects of success exist that the Labour Appeal Court may construe differently the submissions on which the judgment is based and may find in favour of the applicants. The application for leave to appeal is therefore granted.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted.
- The application for 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
Judgment
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
HELD
AT JOHANNESBURG
Case no: J1016/2019
Not reportable
In the matter between:
SATAWU obo MANDLA MBANO & TONGAYI CHENKENYU Applicant
And
MOODYBLUE TRADE INVEST 14(PTY) LTD
First Respondent
NIEL
DAMARAS
Second Respondent
DIANA
SMUTS
Third Respondent
Date of Judgment: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by email, publication on the Labour Court website and release to SAFLII. The date and time for handing down judgment is deemed to be 10h00 on 05 May 2023
JUDGMENT – LEAVE TO APPEAL
LALLIE J
Introduction
[1] The applicant launched this application for leave to appeal against the whole judgment handed down by this court on 6 May 2000. The application as launched on time, however, it is only on 30 March 2023 that the directive for the applicant to effect proper service of the application on the respondents was complied with. The application is unopposed.
[2] The applicant’s main ground grounds for leave to appeal are that I erred in finding that the applicant did not refute the first respondent’s submissions that its transport services has been transferred to Hermis Transport. It was submitted that had the error not been made, I would have found that the applicant had proved that the respondents acted mala fide in not reinstating the individual applicants. The finding would have resulted in a judgment in their favour.
[3] The test for leave to appeal is whether the applicants has prospects of success on appeal.[1]
A consideration of the papers filed of record including the judgment the applicant seeks leave to appeal against support the applicant’s
case that reasonable prospects of success exists that the Labour Appeal Court may construe differently the submissions on which the judgment is based and find in favour of the applicants.
[4] In the premises, the following order is made;
Order:
1. The application for leave to appeal is granted
2. There is no order as to costs.
Lallie J
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
(In chambers)
[1] Martin & East (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Mineworkers & others (2014) 35 ILJ 2399 (LAC)
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.