Stadium Filling Station (Pty) Ltd v Stapelberg N.O and Others (JR 1380/20) [2023] ZALCJHB 114 (3 May 2023)
The court found that the applicant's version regarding the date of awareness of the arbitration award was clearly untenable. The applicant failed to explain why the award was not brought to Dr Phayane's attention after admitting it was sent to the correct email address in May 2018. Furthermore, the warrant of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] ZALCJHB 114
- Parties
- Applicant: Stadium Filling Station (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Johan Stapelberg N.O; Respondent: Dispute Resolution Center, Northern Region; Respondent: Senky Raisibe Matshatsha
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JR 1380/20
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment and Order Delivered.
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal refused.
- Judges
- Swartz
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Arbitration Award Enforcement, Practice Manual Compliance
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Stadium Filling Station (Pty) Limited
Applicant
Johan Stapelberg N.O
Respondent
Dispute Resolution Center, Northern Region
Respondent
Senky Raisibe Matshatsha
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment and Order Delivered.
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
- 2 Whether the applicant's version regarding awareness of the arbitration award is tenable.
- 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal was properly filed within the prescribed period.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's version regarding the date of awareness of the arbitration award was clearly untenable. The applicant failed to explain why the award was not brought to Dr Phayane's attention after admitting it was sent to the correct email address in May 2018. Furthermore, the warrant of execution served in September 2019 expressly referred to the relevant arbitration award. The submissions for leave to appeal were filed within the prescribed period, but the grounds advanced did not establish reasonable prospects of success. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal refused.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is refused.
- There is no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
case no: JR 1380/20
In the matter between
STADIUM FILLING STATION (PTY) LIMITED Applicant And JOHAN STAPELBERG N.O First Respondent DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER, NORTHERN REGION Second Respondent SENKY RAISIBE MATSHATSHA Third Respondent
Considered: In chambers
Delivered: 03 May 2023
JUDGMENT – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
SWARTZ AJ
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of this Court handed down on 28 February 2023.
[2] The applicant filed its application for leave to appeal on 22 March 2023 and its submissions on 4 April 2023. Accordingly the applicant’s submissions were filed within the 10 day period as prescribed in paragraph 15.2 of this Court’s Practice Manual.
[3] I have considered both parties’ submissions.
[4] In terms of the Plascon-Evans principle[1] the applicant’s allegations ought to be rejected on the papers as they are clearly untenable. For the reasons set out in my judgment the applicant’s version that Dr Phayane only became aware of the arbitration award (under the second respondent’s case number MIPT 25976) on 11 June 2020 is clearly untenable most notably because:
4.1 the applicant failed to explain why the default arbitration award (MIPT 25976) was not bought to Dr Phayane’s attention, after the applicant admitted that the arbitration award was sent to the correct email address on 2 May 2018; and
4.2 the applicant admitted that on 26 September 2019 the Sheriff served a warrant of execution under the second respondent’s case number MIPT 27332 on the applicant. The warrant of execution expressly referred to the arbitration award under case number MIPT 25976.
[5] Having considered the grounds for leave to appeal, I come to the conclusion that the application has no reasonable prospects of success.
Order
1. The application for leave to appeal is refused.
2. There is no order as to costs.
S. Swartz
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
[1] Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd [1984] ZASCA 51; 1984 (3) SA 623 (A) at 635C; Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd [2006] ZASCA 52; 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA) at para 55.