Makau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (Application for Leave to Appeal) (JR1503/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 308 (24 July 2025)

Makau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (Application for Leave to Appeal) (JR1503/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 308 (24 July 2025)

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...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZALCJHB 308
Parties
Applicant: Teboho Victor Makau; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Matshekgga, JN N.O.; Respondent: Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 July 2025
Case Number
JR1503/22
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Review
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
M Makhura
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Reinstatement, Backpay
Labour Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Reinstatement Backpay

Source-derived case record

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

Teboho Victor Makau

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Matshekgga, JN N.O.

Respondent

Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third respondent has shown reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there are conflicting judgments or compelling reasons justifying leave to appeal.

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.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The third respondent’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed.