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

30 Reportability

Brief Summary

In the case of Teboho Victor Makau v. Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration & Others, the Labour Court of South Africa addressed an application for leave to appeal filed by the third respondent, the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC). This application followed a judgment delivered on 17 June 2025, where the court had granted a review application, declaring the applicant's dismissal as substantively unfair, and ordered his reinstatement along with backpay. Judge Makhura, upon reviewing the grounds for the appeal, concluded that the third respondent did not demonstrate any reasonable prospects of success. The court noted that there were no conflicting judgments on the issues at hand, nor did the matter present any arguable points of law. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the original judgment that favored the applicant.

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

2

MAKHURA, J

[1] This is an application brought by the third respondent for leav e 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;…”