Water v Kruger and Others (D988/19) [2021] ZALCD 59 (26 July 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] ZALCD 59
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Durban
- Panel
- P Schumann
- Case number
- D988/19
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Durban
- Panel
- P Schumann
- Case number
- D988/19
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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.
02
Material facts
Parties
Mhlathuze Water
ApplicantJohanna P Kruger
RespondentAlmero Deyzel N.O
RespondentThe Commissioner for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA)
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the previous judgment.
- 02
Whether the submissions in support of the application raise new grounds warranting reconsideration.
- 03
Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal as envisaged by Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that the previous judgment was incorrect and that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Submissions were filed reiterating arguments made during the initial hearing, seeking leave to appeal.
- Respondent
- The respondents opposed the application for leave to appeal, arguing that the submissions did not raise any new or compelling grounds and that the judgment should stand.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal will only be granted if the court is persuaded that there are reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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.
- Leave to appeal is refused.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Durban
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 Durban
Ruling
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN
Not Reportable
Case No: D988/19
In the matter between:
MHLATHUZE WATER Applicant
And
JOHANNA P KRUGER First Respondent
COMMISSIONER: ALMERO DEYZEL N.O Second Respondent
THE COMMISSIONER FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION (“CCMA”) Third Respondent
Heard: 21 June 2021
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by email by the Registrar. The date and time for handing-down is deemed 10h00 on 26 July 2021.
Summary: Opposed Review
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
SCHUMANN, AJ
1] Leave to appeal is sought against my previous judgement in this matter. The application was brought some months ago and submissions were filed but, unfortunately, the application was only brought to my attention in the second week of June 2021.
2] I have considered the submissions in support of the application and they add nothing particularly new to what was submitted when the matter was previously argued. I have reconsidered the evidence and the conclusions I drew in light of the material before me and I am unpersuaded that an appeal would have reasonable prospects of success as envisaged by Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013.
2.1] Leave to appeal is, accordingly, refused.
P Schumann
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.