Makau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (Application for Leave to Appeal) (JR1503/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 308 (24 July 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZALCJHB 308
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- M Makhura
- Case number
- JR1503/22
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- M Makhura
- Case number
- JR1503/22
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court considered the grounds advanced by the third respondent for leave to appeal and applied the test under section 17(1) of the Superior Court Act. The judge found that the appeal does not have reasonable prospects of success, and there are no conflicting judgments or compelling reasons warranting leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Orders
- The third respondent’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Teboho Victor Makau
ApplicantCommission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
RespondentMatshekgga, JN N.O.
RespondentCompanies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC)
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Review
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the third respondent has shown reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal.
- 02
Whether there are conflicting judgments or compelling reasons justifying leave to appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant maintains that the judgment correctly found the dismissal to be substantively unfair, and that the grounds for leave to appeal do not meet the statutory threshold under section 17(1) of the Superior Court Act.
- Respondent
- The third respondent argues that the judgment is susceptible to appeal, asserting that there are prospects of success and/or compelling reasons for the matter to be reconsidered, including possible conflicting judgments.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1) of the Superior Court Act 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal may only be granted if the judge is of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason, such as conflicting judgments, for the appeal to be heard.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court considered the grounds advanced by the third respondent for leave to appeal and applied the test under section 17(1) of the Superior Court Act. The judge found that the appeal does not have reasonable prospects of success, and there are no conflicting judgments or compelling reasons warranting leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The matter does not raise any arguable point of law.
- There are no conflicting judgments on any of the issues considered and decided in the judgment.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- The third respondent’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
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
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No. JR1503/22
In the matter between:
TEBOHO
VICTOR MAKAU
Applicant
and
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION
First Respondent
MATSHEKGA, JN N.O.
Second Respondent
COMPANIES
AND INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY COMMISSION (CIPC)
Third Respondent
Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: 24 July 2025
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MAKHURA, J
[1] This is an application brought by the third respondent for leave to appeal the whole of the judgment and order of this Court handed down on 17 June 2025, in which this Court granted the review application, substituted the award with an order declaring the applicant’s dismissal substantively unfair, ordering reinstatement and payment of backpay.
[2] I have read the grounds upon which the third respondent seeks leave to appeal the judgment. I have reflected on the judgment and considered the test for leave to appeal as set out under section 17(1) of the Superior Court Act (SC Act).[1] I am not persuaded that the appeal would have prospects of success. Further, there are no conflicting judgments on any of the issues
considered and decided in the judgment and the matter does not raise any arguable point of law. The application for leave to appeal stands to fail.
[3] In the premises, the following order is made:
Order
1. The third respondent’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
M. Makhura
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
[1] Act 10 of 2013. Section 17(1) provides that: “Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that – (a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or (ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under
consideration;…”
[1] Act 10 of 2013. Section 17(1) provides that: “Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that –
(a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under
consideration;…”
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.