Water v Kruger and Others (D988/19) [2021] ZALCD 59 (26 July 2021)

Water v Kruger and Others (D988/19) [2021] ZALCD 59 (26 July 2021)

The court found that the submissions in support of the application for leave to appeal did not introduce any new arguments beyond those previously considered. Upon reconsideration of the evidence and conclusions reached in the initial judgment, the court was not persuaded that an appeal would have reasonable prospects of success as required by Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2021] ZALCD 59
Parties
Applicant: Mhlathuze Water; Respondent: Johanna P Kruger; Respondent: Almero Deyzel N.O; Respondent: The Commissioner for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA)
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 July 2021
Case Number
D988/19
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused.
Judges
P Schumann
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Review of Arbitration Award, Prospects of Success
Labour Law Leave to Appeal Review of Arbitration Award Prospects of Success

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mhlathuze Water

Applicant

Johanna P Kruger

Respondent

Almero Deyzel N.O

Respondent

The Commissioner for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the previous judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the submissions in support of the application raise new grounds warranting reconsideration.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal as envisaged by Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the submissions in support of the application for leave to appeal did not introduce any new arguments beyond those previously considered. Upon reconsideration of the evidence and conclusions reached in the initial judgment, the court was not persuaded that an appeal would have reasonable prospects of success as required by Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.