THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: JR1756/23
In the matter between:
GOITSEONE ROMEO MOLEMA Applicant
and
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:
NORTH WEST PROVINCE First Respondent
GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTOR
BARGAINING COUNCIL Second Respondent
PETER GREYLING N.O. Third Respondent
Decided: In chambers
Delivered: 18 November 2025
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT: LEAVE TO APPEAL
___________________________________________________________________
ERASMUS, AJ
2
Introduction
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the whole judgment and/or
reasons for the judgment handed down on 5 August 2025 in terms of which
the Court, amongst others, dismissed the Applicant’s application for review.
[2] Neither the Applicant, nor the Respondents, filed any written submissions in
support of, or in opposition to, the application.
[3] The application for leave to appeal was decided in chambers as per the
Court’s rules.
[4] It is trite that leave to appeal is not simply for the taking.
[5] Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act
1 regulates instances in which leave to
appeal may be granted, and Section 17(1) provides that leave to appeal may
only be given where the judge concerned is 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;
(b) the decision sought on appeal does not fall within the ambit of section
16 (2) (a); and
(c) where the decision sought to be appealed does not dispose of all the
issues in the case, the appeal would lead to a just and prompt
resolution of the real issues between the parties.’
[6] In Seatlholo & others v Chemical Energy Paper Printing Wood & Allied
Workers Union & others2 van Niekerk J (as he then was) stated that:
‘The traditional formulation of the test that is applicable in an application such
as the present requires the court to determine whether there is a reasonable
1 Act 10 of 2013.
2 (2016) 37 ILJ 1485 (LC); [2016] ZALCJHB 72 at para 3.
3
prospect that another court may come to a different conclusion to that
reached in the judgment that is sought to be taken on appeal. As the
respondents observe, the use of the word “would” in s 17(1)(a)(i) is indicative
of a raising of the threshold since previously, all that was required for the
applicant to demonstrate was that there was a reasonable prospect that
another court might come to a different conclusion (see Daantjie Community
& others v Crocodile Valley Citrus Company (Pty) Ltd & another (75/2008)
[2015] ZALCC 7 (28 July 2015). Further, this is not a test to be applied lightly
– the Labour Appeal Court has recently had occasion to observe that this
court ought to be cautious when leave to appeal is granted, as should the
Labour Appeal Court when petitions are granted. The statutory imperative of
the expeditious resolution of labour disputes necessarily requires that appeals
be limited to those matters in which there is a reasonable prospect that the
factual matrix could receive a different treatment or where there is some
legitimate dispute on the law ( see the judgment by Davis JA in Martin & East
(Pty) Ltd v National Union of Mineworkers & others (2014) 35 ILJ 2399 (LAC),
and also Kruger v S 2014 (1) SACR 369 (SCA) and the ruling by Steenkamp
J in Oasys Innovations (Pty) Ltd v Henning & another (C 536/15, 6 November
2015).’
[7] The Supreme Court of Appeal in MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v Mkhitha
and Another3 stated that:
‘[16] Once again it is necessary to say that leave to appeal, especially to
this court, must not be granted unless there truly is a reasonable
prospect of success. Section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of
2013 makes it clear that leave 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 it should be heard.
[17] An applicant for leave to appeal must convince the court on proper
[17] An applicant for leave to appeal must convince the court on proper
grounds that there is a reasonable prospect or realistic chance of
success on appeal. A mere possibility of success, an arguable case or
one that is not hopeless, is not enough. There must be a sound,
3 (1221/2015) [2016] ZASCA 176 (25 November 2016).
4
rational basis to conclude that there is a reasonable prospect of
success on appeal.’
[8] Due to the Applicant’s lack of compliance with the requirements relating to the
filing of written submissions, his application stands to be dismissed on this
ground alone. The Court will nonetheless also have regard to the merits of the
application for leave to appeal.
[9] I have once again considered my judgment and order s in light of the
application for leave to appeal and the grounds contained therein, against the
requirements in applications for leave to appeal. No compelling reasons have
been referred to necessitating leave to appeal on such grounds. I am
furthermore of the view that another Court would not come to different findings
on the facts and arguments presented.
[10] In the premises, the order is as follows:
Order
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
_____________________________
L. Erasmus
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa