THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: 2025-172308
In the matter between:
KELA SECURITIES (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
VINCENT JOSEPH FREEMANTLE First Respondent
THE SHERIFF, SANDTON SOUTH Second Respondent
Heard: In Chambers
Order: 24 November 2025
This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal
representatives by email and/or uploading on CaseLines. The date of hand- down
is deemed to be 24 November 2025.
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MAKHURA, J
2
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal the judgment and order of this Court
handed down on 6 October 2025. In terms of the judgment, the Court dismissed
the applicant’s application to stay the writ of execution pending a rescission
application and/or a review application. The Court held that the application to
stay the writ pending a rescission application was not substantiated and that
there was no pending review application because the review application had
been deemed withdrawn and/or had lapsed and that the award that the applicant
seeks to review is no longer in existence after it was made an order of this Court
on 22 November 2023.
[2] The applicant’s case is that a directive issued by a Judge to enrol l the matter for
hearing effectively breathes back to life a matter that has been deemed
withdrawn or a file that had lapsed, and nullifies the order making the award an
order of court such that the same court can review and set aside the same award
the court had made a n order. Further, the applicant complains that the Court
ignored the rescission application and seeks to appeal against the punitive cost
order.
[3] The fact that the award was made an order of court was dispositive of the
application to stay the writ pending the review application. Even if it was not, the
review application is deemed withdrawn and the file is archived. These points are
demonstrated in the main judgment.
[4] The rescission application was brought after the applicant’s belated realisation
that there was no award that could be the subject of a review application before
this Court after the Court made it an order of court. The Court was informed of
the application for rescission at the commencement of the hearing. The founding
affidavit did not incorporate the rescission application, and the applicant did not
seek to supplement its founding papers in the proceedings . This order remained
unsubstantiated. The applicant complains that this Court should have considered
unsubstantiated. The applicant complains that this Court should have considered
the rescission application, despite the founding affidavit not disclosing any case
3
to support the order. This submission is untenable. I have addressed this issue in
the main judgment.
[5] The applicant submits that the cost order was awarded “without any justification” .
The parties have sought punitive costs order against each other in the main
application. In fact, the applicant had sought costs de boni s propiriis against the
employee’s attorneys. The order was not abandoned. Even if it were , it would
have been too late. The reasons for the punitive cost order are set out in the
main judgment and the suggestion that the order was issued without justification
is incorrect.
[6] For the above reasons, and the reasons in the main judgment, the applicant’s
application for leave to appeal does not satisfy the test and stands to be
dismissed. The employee has sought the dismissal of the application with costs
on a punitive scale. The application is meritless, and the employee should not be
impoverished for opposing a misguided and meritless application. The applicant
must therefore pay the costs of this application on a party and party scale.
[7] In the premises, the following order is made:
Order
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
_____________________
M. Makhura
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa