Treasure Point Travel & Tours v Thelm Chivasa

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/37/2014
HARARE, 28 NOVEMBER 2013
CASE NO.
JUDGMENT LC/37/2014
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE        JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/37/2014

HARARE, 28 NOVEMBER 2013	    		     	     CASE NO. LC/H/235/11

AND 31 JANUARY 2014

In the matter between:-

TREASURE POINT TRAVEL & TOURS				Applicant

And

THELM CHIVASA							Respondent

Before Honourable L Hove, Judge

For Applicant 	-	 Ms A. Chatsama (Legal Practitioner)

Respondent	-	In person

HOVE J:

This is an application for leave to appeal this court’s Judgment to the Supreme Court.

The court ruled that the appeal before it was based on facts and in terms of law, appeals from decisions of Arbitrators can only be on points of law.

Section 98 (10) provides that:

“An appeal on a question of law shall lie to the Labour Court from any decision of an Arbitrator appointed in terms of this Section.”

There is no provision that appeals on questions of facts shall lie to the Labour Court.

In the application for leave to appeal, the Applicant does not address the issue of whether or not her appeal is on a point of law.  In the grounds of appeal filed together with the application, this issue is not raised.

It was incumbent on the Applicant to show that the Court erred in arriving at the conclusion that the appeal is not on points of law but was based on points of facts.  And further to show that she has good prospects of success in relation to that issue.

The intended grounds of appeal deal with issues which the court made no ruling on.

In the reasons for application, the Applicant makes bold averments that she has high prospects of success without outlining why she is of the view that the court erred in holding that her appeal was on points of facts.

The Applicant raises this pertinent issue in her reasons for application that is, in her last paragraph 9 (e) and does not seek to explain herself or elaborate on why the court erred.  The payment of damages and the question of whether or not leave days were taken are issues based in facts.

I am not persuaded that the Applicant has been able to discharge the onus on her of showing that she has reasonable prospects of success.

In the case of

Pichanik N.O. vs Patterson 1999 (2) ZLR 163

The court stated that

“leave to appeal should be granted where it has reasonable prospects of success, the amount in dispute is not trifling and the matter is of substantial importance to one or both parties …”

Further the court emphasized the need for good prospects of success when seeking leave to appeal in the case of Van Herden v Cronwright and as 1985 (2) SA 342 (T) where it was held that;

“whilst it is important to keep in mind that the intention of the legislature in requiring leave to be granted is to limit the number of cases which might be taken on appeal, the criterion should be whether there is reasonable prospects of success on appeal.  The major consideration is whether applicant enjoys good prospects of success on appeal.”

I have already stated that the Applicant has not argued how good her prospects of success are apart from a bold unsupported statement that she has good prospects of success.  This court had to be satisfied on that issue to enable it to grant the application for leave to appeal.

In the result, the Applicant’s application must fail on the basis that she has no reasonable prospects of success on appeal.

These are the reasons of the Court’s Order.

L. HOVE

JUDGE