THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: JR74/2020
In the matter between:
SOLOMZI MAYE Applicant
and
RAILWAY SAFETY REGULATOR First Respondent
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION Second Respondent
COMMISSIONER G.S. JANSEN VAN VUUREN N.O. Third Respondent
Decided: In chambers
Date: 23 October 2025
_________________________________________________________________________
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
_________________________________________________________________________
DJAJE, AJ
[1] This is a leave to appeal application against the whole judgment handed down
on 13 June 2025, in which the following order was made:
2
‘1 the matter is removed from the unopposed roll to the opposed roll for
argument on Rule 71 and review application.
2 the respondent’ s attorneys are ordered to deliver a resolution from the
1st respondent authorising them to act on their behalf within 10 days of
this order.’
[2] This application is decided on paper and is not necessary for oral arguments.
The applicant filed written submissions.
[3] The test to be applied in an application for leave to appeal is set out in section
17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act
1 10 of 2013, which provides that:
‘(1) 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 applicant raised several grounds of appeal concerning the court's findings
when the matter was before it for review. An ex tempore judgment was
delivered with the order as stated above.
[5] The applicant in this case raises the same argument that was made in the
main application regarding the authority to oppose litigation by the respondent
and the appointment of the legal representative. The respondents properly
submitted a resolution from the first respondent authorising the litigation. It
was argued that, based on the previous judgment, the matter was unopposed
because there was no authority, and the case should have proceeded on an
unopposed basis. On the day of the hearing, the first respondent was present
in court and raised a point of law that needed to be decided. However, the
issue of authority related to that matter had to be addressed, and once
upheld, it resulted in the case being moved from the unopposed roll to the
opposed roll. This order did not resolve the issues in the main application.
1 Act 10 of 2013.
3
[6] It is essential to determine whether the order granted by this court is
appealable. The Supreme Court of Appeal in Zweni v Minister of Law and
Order
2 laid down the requirements for appealability of an order as follows:
‘(a) the decision must be final in effect and not open to alteration by the
court of first instance;
(b) it must be definitive of the rights of the parties;
(c) and it must have the effect of disposing of at least a substantial portion
of the relief claimed in the main proceedings.’
[7] In Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Von Abo 3 the
Supreme Court of Appeal held that:
‘It is fair to say that there is no checklist of requirements. Several
considerations need to be weighed up, including whether the relief granted
was final in its effect, definitive of the rights of the parties, disposed of a
substantial portion of the relief claimed, aspects of convenience, the time at
which the issue is considered, delay, expedience, prejudice, the avoidance of
piecemeal appeals and the attainment of justice.’
[8] The Constitutional Court in United Democratic Movement and Another v
Lebashe Investment Group (Pty) Ltd and Others4 explained that:
‘In deciding whether an order is appealable, not only the form of the order
must be considered but also, and predominantly, its effect. Thus, an order
which appears in form to be purely interlocutory will be appealable if its effect
is such that it is final and definitive of any issue or portion thereof in the main
action. By the same token, an order which might appear, according to its
form, to be finally definitive in the above sense may, nevertheless, be purely
interlocutory in effect.’
[9] The order issued in this case was that the application for review be removed
from the unopposed roll and added to the opposed roll. This is not a final
2 1993 (1) SA 523 (A); [1993] 1 All SA 365 (AD) at 532J – 533.
3 [2011] 3 All SA 261 (SCA); [2011] ZASCA 65 at para 17.
4 [2022] ZACC 34; 2023 (1) SA 353 (CC) at para 41.
4
order and, as such, is not subject to appeal as mentioned above. The
application for leave to appeal should be dismissed.
[10] The application for leave to appeal was not opposed, and there should be no
order as to costs.
[11] Consequently, the following order is made:
Order
1. Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2. There is no order as to costs.
_____________________
J. T. Djaje
Acting Judge of the Labour Court