THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: JR191/22
In the matter between:
MARTIN LOUW Applicant
and
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION First Respondent
JAMES NGOAKO MATSHIRGA N.O. Second Respondent
TELKOM SOC LIMITED Third Respondent
Heard: In chambers
Delivered: 12 November 2025
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
RAMJI, AJ
[1] On 5 November 2025, I was provided with the applicant’s application for leave
to appeal. The application was filed timeously, on 2 September 2025. This is
an unopposed application for leave to appeal, according to the records. No
written submissions were filed.
2
[2] The applicant applies for leave to appeal against my order refusing the
application for reinstatement of his review application.
[3] The reinstatement application was required because a record was not filed
within the required 60-day period, and because of a period of inactivity for six
months. Therefore, the review application was deemed withdrawn and the file
had been archived.
[4] I considered all factors relevant when seeking reinstatement, and balanced
these.
[5] The applicant contends that I erred in finding that his financial position was
not an adequate explanation for the delay. This mischaracterises the decision.
The decision was that it was not sufficient for the applicant to broadly and
vaguely aver poor health and finances, without any further detail, when the
record was filed 13 months late. The period before the alleged illness and
financial difficulties was also not explained. The legal standard required when
explaining a delay was therefore not met and this ground of appeal has no
merit.
[6] I further considered the prospects of success based on the circumstances of
the case. I was, however, confined to what was stated in the pleadings. On
prospects of success, the pleadings were as scant as they were in explaining
the delay. It is correct that ignoring material evidence or procedural
irregularities may lead to a decision being set aside on review, if the material
evidence that was ignored or the procedural irregularities resulted in an
unreasonable decision.
[7] The point is that all the applicant’s reinstatement papers s tated was that the
Commissioner misdirected himself in two respects, and nothing more. The
applicant did not plead that these alleged irregularities resulted in an
unreasonable decision, and it is not automatically the case that they would.
The papers therefore did not lay a basis for me to find that the applicant had
any prospects of success, i.e. the affidavit did not contain allegations that
any prospects of success, i.e. the affidavit did not contain allegations that
prima facie established prospects of success . This ground of appeal also has
no merit.
3
Order
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
_______________________
B. Ramji
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa