Maranda Mining Co (Pty) Ltd and Another v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2793/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 108 (15 February 2013)

Maranda Mining Co (Pty) Ltd and Another v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2793/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 108 (15 February 2013)

The court found that, after careful consideration of the grounds for leave to appeal advanced by the second applicant, there was no reasonable possibility that another court would reach a different decision regarding the dismissal of the review application. The lack of substantive opposition submissions from the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 108
Parties
Applicant: Maranda Mining Co (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Camdor Resources (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Donald Kgalake Nkadimeng; Respondent: Swart, Leon
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 February 2013
Case Number
JR2793/11
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Gush
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Review of Arbitration Award, Costs Order
Labour Law Leave to Appeal Review of Arbitration Award Costs Order

Source-derived case record

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

Maranda Mining Co (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Camdor Resources (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Donald Kgalake Nkadimeng

Respondent

Swart, Leon

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a reasonable possibility that another court would reach a different decision on the dismissal of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted in the absence of substantive opposition submissions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, after careful consideration of the grounds for leave to appeal advanced by the second applicant, there was no reasonable possibility that another court would reach a different decision regarding the dismissal of the review application. The lack of substantive opposition submissions from the third respondent did not alter this assessment. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The second applicant's application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.