THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: JR2405/21
In the matter between:
WBHO CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
GLEN ALLEN CORMACK N.O First Respondent
BARGAINING COUNCIL FOR THE CIVIL Second Respondent
ENGINEERING INDUSTRY
ISAAC MHAWU MAPHANGA Third Respondent
Considered: In Chambers
Delivered: 27 August 2025
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MOKWENA, AJ
2
Introduction
[1] The Applicant seek leave to appeal against the j udgment and o rders of this
Court handed down on the 13 December 2024, and it appears to me that in terms of
the grounds for leave to appeal, the bone of contention lies in substantive fairness.
[2] The application for l eave to a ppeal is dated 3 February 2025 and it was
served on the third Respondent’s attorneys on the even date.
[3] For reasons unknown to the Court, the application only came to this Court
attention through an email dated 30
July 2025 at 02:18 PM. The email amongst
others stated as follows: “ Good day Judge. Kindly see attached documents for an
application for leave to appeal that was filed at court ”. The email is not accompanied
by any explanation why it took six months for the application for leave to appeal to
receive my attention.
Lateness
[4] The judgment in this matter was delivered on the 13 December 2024 and the
application for leave to appeal was only delivered on 3 February 2025. Rule 67 (3) of
the Labour Court Rules 1, an application for leave to appeal must be delivered within
ten days after the date on which the reasons are given, except that the Court may,
on good cause shown, extend that period.
[5] In casu, the ten days to file the application for l eave to a ppeal lapsed on 29
January 2025. Therefore, the application is two days late. The Applicant in its
application for leave to appeal failed to request an extension of the period as allowed
in Rule 67 (3) of the Labour Court Rules.
[6] It seems to me that Rule 67 (3) is instructive in that where a party has failed to
comply with the time frames prescribed in the Rule, such a party must obtain leave
from the Court to file the application for leave to appeal.
1 GN 4775 of 2024: Rules Regulating the Conduct of Proceedings of the Labour Court.
3
[7] Now, the question is whether this Court can mero motu extend the period to
the 3rd February 2025 when the Application was actually delivered?
[8] In my view to condone the lateness in the absence of an application for
extension or condonation would constitute a misdirection on the part of this Court,
especially when the Applicant saw no need to make an application for condonation.
[9] Rule 67(3) requires that a good cause must be shown before granting any
extension of the period. For that reason, this Court cannot mero motu extend the
period.
[10] This is strengthened by Phasha v Morudi N.O and others
2 the Polokwane
High court held that: The respondents have served and filed their answering affidavit
one day out of time without an application for condonation for late filing of their
answering affidavit. Without a substantive application this Court will not mero motu or
from an application from the bar grant the respondents condonation application.
(Own emphasis added)
[11] Therefore, the Court finds that; the application for leave to appeal is not valid
or proper before Court and ought to be rejected by this Court.
Conclusion
[12] In view of what I stated above, the application for l eave to appeal should be
rejected and found to be unacceptable by this Court. No comment was received from
the third Respondent despite delivering a notice to oppose.
[13] Therefore, the following order is made:
Order
2 (3046/2018) [2019] ZALMPPHC (7 May 2019) at para 10.
4
1. The application for leave to appeal is hereby struck off the roll for want
of compliance with Rule 67 (3) of the Rules of this Court.
2. There is no order as to costs.
K Mokwena
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa