THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: JS 575/24
In the matter between:
WILLIAM AMOS NOKANA & 5 OTHERS Plaintiff
and
SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES (PTY) LTD Defendant
Considered: In chambers
Delivered: 20 October 2025
JUDGMENT – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
EDWARDS, AJ
[1] The applicant s have applied for leave to appeal against the whole of the
judgment of this Court dated 22 August 2025.
[2] What was before this Court was the applicants’ application for the
condonation of the late filing of their statement of claim, which on their
calculation, was filed 771 days out of time.
[3] This Court ultimately refused condonation. It found that, although the
applicants had furnished a reasonable explanation which covered the first
period of the delay (460 days), the explanation furnished for the second
period of delay (351 days), was unsatisfactory and incomplete. This Court,
when considering the applicants’ prospects of success, found that the
prospects of success as set out in the condonation application were not
enough to overcome the poor explanation for the second period of delay,
which was excessive.
2
[4] On this basis, this Court found that it would not be in the interests of justice to
grant condonation.
[5] The applicant s seek leave to appeal on the basis that this Court erred in
arriving at the above findings. The respondent opposes the application for
leave to appeal.
[6] The grounds upon which leave to appeal is sought as well as the content of
the written submissions filed in support of the application for leave to appeal
have, in my view, already been comprehensively addressed in this Court’s
judgment in this matter.
[7] In considering this application, I have had regard for the test for applications
for leave to appeal which is set out in section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts
Act
1, that is, that l eave to appeal may only be given where the judge
concerned is of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect
of success; or there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should
be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration.
[8] I have also taken cognisance of the comment of Davis JA in Martin & East
(Pty) Ltd v National Union of Mineworkers & others,
2 that, because the Labour
Relations Act, 66 of 1995 (“the LRA”) was designed to ensure an expeditious
resolution of industrial disputes, courts, and particularly courts in the position
of this court, need to be cautious when leave to appeal is granted and must
take great care to ensure a balance between the expeditious resolution of a
dispute and the rights of the party which has lost.
1 No. 10 of 2013.
2 (2014) 35 ILJ 2399 (LAC) at 2405J - F.
3
[9] Having considered the application for leave to appeal, as well as the written
submissions of both the applicants and the respondent , and having reflected
on this Court’s judgment in this matter, I am not persuaded that the appeal
would have a reasonable prospect of success, nor am I persuaded that there
are any compelling reasons for the matter to be heard by the Labour Appeal
Court.
[10] Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal falls to be dismissed.
[11] In the premises, the following order is made:
Order
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
_______________
M. Edwards
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa