SATAWU obo Members v Command Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR437/01, JR787/02) [2016] ZALCJHB 141 (8 April 2016)
- Citation
- [2016] ZALCJHB 141
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- AC Basson
- Case number
- JR437/01, JR787/02
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- AC Basson
- Case number
- JR437/01, JR787/02
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that, having considered the submissions of both parties, there exists a reasonable prospect that another court may reach a different conclusion on the grounds advanced by the respondents. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted against the judgment which held the first respondent liable as the employer and ordered reinstatement of the applicant's members.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is granted.
- Costs to be costs in the appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
SATAWU obo 212 Members
Applicant Counsel: Advocate Van der Riet SCCommand Security Services (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Advocate Stelzner SCMohammed Iqbal Parker
RespondentKalman Gordon Druker
RespondentMaurice Musa Mdlolo
RespondentSimon Banda
RespondentWilson Rich and Associates
RespondentStephen Van Diggele
RespondentSusanna Hendrina Rentzke
RespondentChagan Jadav Vaghela
RespondentMarius Potgieter
RespondentMohammed Shaffie Mowzer
RespondentIXIA Trading 234 (Pty) Ltd
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Employer Identity and Reinstatement Order.
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding the identity of the employer and liability for reinstatement.
- 02
Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment holding the first respondent liable.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant opposed the granting of leave to appeal, maintaining that the judgment correctly identified the employer and imposed liability for reinstatement. The applicant argued that the grounds for appeal lacked merit and that the evidence supported the court's findings.
- Respondent
- The respondents contended that there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion on the identity of the employer and the liability for reinstatement. They relied on grounds set out in their Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal, arguing that the judgment was incorrect in its findings.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal should be granted if there is a reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different conclusion.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that, having considered the submissions of both parties, there exists a reasonable prospect that another court may reach a different conclusion on the grounds advanced by the respondents. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted against the judgment which held the first respondent liable as the employer and ordered reinstatement of the applicant's members.
Obiter and limits
- Costs are to be costs in the appeal, which is the standard approach in leave to appeal applications.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted.
- Leave to appeal is granted.
- Costs to be costs in the appeal.
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
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not reportable
Case no: JR 437/01 & J787/02
In the matter between:
SATAWU obo 212
MEMBERS
Applicant
(Respondents in the application for leave to appeal)
and
COMMAND SECURITY SERVICES (PTY)
LTD
First Respondent
MOHAMMED
IQBAL
PARKER
Second Respondent
KALMAN
GORDON
DRUKER
Third Respondent
MAURICE
MUSA
MDLOLO
Fourth Respondent
SIMON
BANDA
Fifth Respondent
WILSON RICH and
ASSOCIATES
Sixth Respondent
STEPHEN
VAN
DIGGELE
Seventh Respondent
SUSANNA
HENDRINA
RENTZKE
Eighth Respondent
CHAGAN
JADAV
VAGHELA
Ninth Respondent
MARIUS
POTGIETER
Tenth Respondent
MOHAMMED
SHAFFIE MOWZER
Eleventh Respondent
IXIA TRADING 234 (PTY)
LTD
Twelfth Respondent
(Applicants in the application for leave to appeal)
Decided: In Chambers
Judgment: 8 April2016
Summary: Application for leave to appeal against the judgment regarding the dispute about the true identity of the employer referred to oral evidence.
JUDGMENT- APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
AC BASSON, J
[1] The respondents applied for leave to appeal against that part of the judgement handed down on 10 February 2016 in terms of which this Court held that the first respondent was the employer of the applicant’s members and liable to comply with the reinstatement
order of this Court.
[2] I have considered the submissions filed on behalf of both parties and I am of the view that there is a reasonable prospect of a different court concluding differently on any of the grounds relied on in the Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal.
Order
[3] In the event the following order is made:
3.1 Leave to appeal is granted.
3.2 Costs to be cost in the appeal.
___
AC Basson, J
Judge of the High Court
Former Judge of the Labour Court
Appearances:
For the Applicant:
Advocate Van der Riet SC
(Respondent in the application for leave to appeal)
Instructed by:
Masondo Attorneys Inc,
For the Respondents: Advocate Stelzner SC
Instructed by:
T Erasmus & Associates c/o Goldberg Attorneys.
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.