THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: JR1249/22
In the matter between:
THE FROZEN MERCHANT (PTY) LTD t/a
WALTLOO MEAT & CHICKEN SOUTHDALE
(REG NO: 2018/231465/07) Applicant
and
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION First Respondent
COMMISSIONER NTHABISENG
P MANTSHULE N.O Second Respondent
ANTONIO MARQUES DA SILVA DOS REIS Third Respondent
Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties through their legal representatives’ email addresses. The date for the
hand-down is deemed to be on 27 November 2025
LEAVE TO APPEAL- JUDGMENT
DJAJE, AJ
2
[1] This is a leave to appeal application against the whole judgment handed down
on 16 October 2025, in which the following order was made:
‘1. The condonation for the late filing of the application for variation is
granted;
2. The application for variation is dismissed;
3. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.’
[2] This application is decided on paper and is not necessary for oral arguments.
Both parties filed their 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 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] In the main, this application is based on the argument that the compensation
award was not varied after the setting aside of the finding of procedural
unfairness. The grounds raised by the applicant in this application do not
satisfy the threshold that the appeal would have reasonable prospects of
success. These were ventilated and addressed in the judgment. There is also
no compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
[5] This application is opposed, and the applicant has not succeeded. I see no
reason why the third respondent should not be awarded costs.
[6] Consequently, the following order is made:
Order
1. Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
3
__________________________
J.T. Djaje
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
4
Appearances:
For the applicant : Mr Cliffod Levin
Instructed by : Clifford Levin Inc.
For the Respondent : Mr Thabang Ngobeni
Instructed by : TM Ngobeni Attorneys