Tshani and Others v DHL Supply Chain South Africa (Pty) Ltd (J132/22) [2022] ZALCJHB 151 (30 May 2022)

Tshani and Others v DHL Supply Chain South Africa (Pty) Ltd (J132/22) [2022] ZALCJHB 151 (30 May 2022)

The Court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate how, in light of the facts and circumstances, the Court could have exercised its supervisory powers under section 189A(13) of the LRA, especially since the facilitation process had concluded and a mutual separation agreement was in force and binding. The retrenchment dispute was resolved by agreement, and there were no pending actions except the disposed application. The Court was not persuaded that there were reasonable prospects another Court would reach a different conclusion, nor that any novel issues of law or fact were raised. The costs order was justified and consistent with the main judgment. Accordingly, leave to appeal...

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 151
Parties
Applicant: Hlamulani Tshani; Applicant: Daniel Mogotlane; Applicant: Ranko Nqoepe; Applicant: Alpheus Ndlozi; Applicant: Themba Toyi; Applicant: Sibusiso Nkosi; Applicant: Gordon Ramothibe; Applicant: Nkosinathi Mbambo; Respondent: DHL Supply Chain South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2022
Case Number
J132/22
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Section 189 A(13) Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Section 189a Application, Urgency in Labour Court, Condonation, Costs Order, Mutual Separation Agreement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Section 189a Application Urgency in Labour Court Condonation Costs Order Mutual Separation Agreement

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hlamulani Tshani

Applicant

Daniel Mogotlane

Applicant

Ranko Nqoepe

Applicant

Alpheus Ndlozi

Applicant

Themba Toyi

Applicant

Sibusiso Nkosi

Applicant

Gordon Ramothibe

Applicant

Nkosinathi Mbambo

Applicant

DHL Supply Chain South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Section 189 A(13) Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court erred in conflating urgency under section 189A of the LRA with rule 8 of the Labour Court Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the Court erred in its calculation of lateness and assessment of good cause for condonation.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants demonstrated reasonable prospects of success to justify leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate how, in light of the facts and circumstances, the Court could have exercised its supervisory powers under section 189A(13) of the LRA, especially since the facilitation process had concluded and a mutual separation agreement was in force and binding. The retrenchment dispute was resolved by agreement, and there were no pending actions except the disposed application. The Court was not persuaded that there were reasonable prospects another Court would reach a different conclusion, nor that any novel issues of law or fact were raised. The costs order was justified and consistent with the main judgment. Accordingly, leave to appeal...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

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