THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA , JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: JR 1552/2 1
In the matter between:
EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Applicant
and
WILLIAMS, G.I. N.O. First Respondent
SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL G OVERNMENT
BARGAINING COUNCIL Second Respondent
ELIAS MZWANELE YAWA Third Respondent
Case No: JR1625/21
In the matter between:
ELIAS MZWANELE YAWA Applicant
and
2
SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL G OVERNMENT
BARGAINING COUNCIL First Respondent
WILLIAMS, G.I. N.O. Second Respondent
EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Third R espondent
Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: 13 March 2025
JUDGMENT :
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MAKHURA , J
[1] Mr Elias Mzwanele Yawa (applicant) applies for leave to appeal the judgment
and order handed down on 28 November 2024. In t hat judgment, this Court dismissed
the applicant’s jurisdictional point, dismissed the application for consolidation, granted
condonation and review applications in case number JR1552/21 brought by the
Municipality, reviewed and set aside the award and remitted the unfair dismissal dispute
for arbitration de novo. The Court dismissed the review application brought by the applicant under case number JR1625/21.
[2] Save for the decision to decision to dismiss the consolidation application, t he
applicant seeks leave to appeal the whole of the judgment and order . The Municipality
opposes the application and seeks the dismissal of the application with costs.
3
[3] The test to determine application s for leave to appeal is set out under section 17
of the Superior Court Act (SC Act).1 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 …
[4] The question therefore is whether the appeal would have a reasonable prospect
of success or whether there are other compelling reasons that warrant the appeal being
heard.
[5] I have considered the applicant’s grounds upon which he seeks leave to appeal ,
his submissions and the Municipality’s submissions . The grounds for leave to appeal
are a regurgitation of his opposition to the Municipality’s application , the review grounds
in his application and the submissions made during the hearing of the matter . These
issues have been addressed in the main judgment.
[6] The commissioner acted outside the terms of reference or the pre- arbitration
minute which identified the issues he was called upon to determine. This is sufficient to
vitiate the award and to order a re- trial of the issues. I n addition, t he basis upon which
the commissioner found that the applicant was dismissed is incoherent . No amount of
fair and generous reading could save this awar d from being reviewed and set aside.
[7] Having considered the application for leave to appeal and reflected on the main
judgment , I am not persuaded that the application satisfied the leave to appeal
threshold that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success . Further, the
matter does not present any arguable point of law. Therefore, there are no other
1 Act 10 of 2013.
4
compelling reasons for the Labour Appeal Court to be burdened with this matter. The
application for leave to appeal stands to be dismissed.
[8] In the premises, the following order is made:
Order :
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
M. Makhura
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa