Vision Integrated Workers Union and Others v Sandton Plant Hire (Pty) Ltd (JS360/19) [2021] ZALCJHB 369 (18 October 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] ZALCJHB 369
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- S Mabaso
- Case number
- JS360/19
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- S Mabaso
- Case number
- JS360/19
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the respondent failed to present persuasive grounds indicating reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The grounds for leave to appeal were considered against the applicable test and the judgment in the main action. The court was not satisfied that another court would come to a different conclusion regarding the findings of procedural and substantive unfairness in the dismissals. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal is refused.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is refused.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Vision Integrated Workers Union
ApplicantWilliam Modiba
ApplicantJoseph Masina
ApplicantThe Dismissed Employees of Sandton Plant Hire (Pty) Ltd
ApplicantSandton Plant Hire (Pty) Ltd
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment in Main Action
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondent has shown reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the judgment finding dismissals procedurally and substantively unfair.
- 02
Whether leave to appeal should be granted.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants maintain that the original judgment correctly found the dismissals to be procedurally and substantively unfair, and that the respondent has not advanced any new or persuasive grounds to justify leave to appeal.
- Respondent
- The respondent contends that the judgment was incorrect in finding the dismissals unfair and seeks leave to appeal, arguing that there are prospects of success on appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal should only be granted where there is a reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different conclusion.
- 02
National Union of Mineworkers v East Rand Gold & Uranium Co Ltd (1992) 13 ILJ 1021 (A)
The test for leave to appeal is whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of success.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the respondent failed to present persuasive grounds indicating reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The grounds for leave to appeal were considered against the applicable test and the judgment in the main action. The court was not satisfied that another court would come to a different conclusion regarding the findings of procedural and substantive unfairness in the dismissals. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.
Obiter and limits
- No order as to costs was made, reflecting the court's discretion in labour matters.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal is refused.
- Leave to appeal is refused.
- 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
Ruling
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: JS 360/19
In the matter between:
VISION
INTEGRATED WORKERS UNION 1st Applicant
WILLIAM MODIBA 2nd Applicant
JOSEPH MASINA 3rd Applicant
THE
DISMISSED EMPLOYEES OF SANDTON
PLANT HIRE (PTY) LTD 4TH Applicant
and
SANDTON PLANT HIRE (PTY) LTD Respondent
Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: 18 October 2021, via email to the parties
JUDGMENT- LEAVE TO
APPEAL
MABASO, AJ
[1] This Court made an order in favour of the individual applicants in the main action thus: The dismissal of both Messrs Joseph Masina and Makhathini by the Respondent is both procedurally and substantively unfair; then the Respondent was ordered to reinstate them; that the dismissal of the remaining individual applicants was found to be only procedurally unfair, consequently the Respondent was ordered to pay each of the latter Applicants a compensation equivalent to one month of their respective salaries. Now the Respondent seeks leave to appeal against such an order.
[2] This Court has considered the grounds for leave to appeal, the applicable test and its judgment, which is a subject of this application, but is not satisfied that the Respondent has presented persuasive grounds that there are prospects of success in the appeal. As a result, this application should not succeed.
Order:
1. Leave to appeal is refused.
2. No order as to costs.
Sandile Mabaso
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
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.