THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: J802/2022
In the matter between:
DENNIS NHLANHLA NKOSI Applicant
and
MINISTER OF WATER AND SANITATION First Respondent
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND SANITATION Second Respondent
Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: 01 September 2025
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MOLOTSI, AJ
Introduction
2
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the whole judgment and
order delivered on 25 April 2025. The application for leave to appeal was launched
by the applicant, Dennis Nhlanhla Nkosi. There is nothing in the Court file which
indicates that the application for leave to appeal is opposed by the respondents.
Grounds for leave to appeal
[2] The applicant submitted the following grounds for leave to appeal:
2.1. The Court erred by disregarding that the principal issue in dispute was
the enforcement of the employment contract in terms of the Basic Conditions
of Employment Act1 (BCEA) and not the Labour Relations Act2 (LRA);
2.2. The Court erred by applying the wrong test for the enforcement of an
employment contract application;
2.3. The Court erred by applying irrelevant evidence;
2.4. The Court did not consider that the awarding of costs was supposed to
have followed the results.
Analysis
[3] The application for leave to appeal is regulated by section 17(1) of the
Superior Courts Act
3 (Act). Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge
concerned is of the o pinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of
success. The test is a stringent test. The applicant in the leave to appeal must
convince the Court that there are sound and rational basis to conclude that there is a
reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
[4] The grounds for leave to appeal submitted by the applicant have no merit.
The grounds do not come close to meeting the test in terms of section 17(1) of the
Act. The grounds for leave to appeal are different from the case that was argued by
the applicant during the hearing. The ground for leave to appeal in respect of costs is
1 Act 75 of 1997.
2 Act 66 of 1995, as amended.
3 Act 10 of 2013.
3
bizarre. There was no costs order made, and the applicant was the losing party. The
principle that costs must follow the results does not apply in this Court.
[5] In the result, the following order is made:
Order
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2. There is no order as to costs.
H Molotsi
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa