107022/2025 /rb JUDGMENT
16-10-2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO : 107022/2025
DATE : 16 -10 -2025
In the matter between
10
NATIONAL EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION 1S T APPLICANT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
SAKELIGA NPC 2ND APPLICANT
AND
MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT 1ST RESPONDENT
AN D LABOUR
DIRECTOR -GENERAL OF 2ND RESPONDENT
THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR
COMMISSION FOR EMPLOYMENT 3RD RESPONDENT
20
J U D G M E N T
MOSHOAN A, J: Having t aken into consideration the fact that
this matter is, as Mr D ’Oliveira s ubmitted , of national
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE : YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES : YES / NO
(3) REVISED
107022/2025 /rb JUDGMENT
16-10-2025
2
importance, I was initially minded to reserve my judgment in
order to allo w the Constitutional Court an opportunity to make
a decision but the circumstances seem not to permit. Fo r
practical reasons, it is pointless for this Court to make a
decision whilst the decision of the Constitutional Court pends
on the same relief . That notwithstanding , both counsel seem
to be of the view that this application must be determined
without any further delays .
Before me is an application seeking leave to
appeal the judgment and order made by this Court on 28 10
August 2025. It is unnecessary for the purposes of the
present judgment to detail the facts of this case since they
have been set out in some relevant details in the impugned
judgment . In an application of this nature, the Court is
guided by the provisions of section 17 of the Superior Court
Act. Out of that section, there are two bases upon which an
app lica tion for leave to appeal may be granted.
Th is Court must form an opinion as to whether
there are prospects that another court would not may come
to a different conclusion. Secondly, the Court must also 20
consider whether there are compelling reasons why the
appeal should not be he ard. On compelling reasons
requirement, th e s ection provides , as an example, the issue
of conflicting judgments.
Now, in considering th is application, the first
107022/2025 /rb JUDGMENT
16-10-2025
3
question that this Court must look into is whether another
court would come to a different conclusion. Mr Nalan e made
a submission to the effect that the order that this Court made
is not final in effect on the basis that there is still a pending
part B. In retort, Mr D’ Oliv eira , submitted with reference to
the Knox Darby case that a refusal to grant an inter im
interdict is appealable.
In reply, reference was made to the Constitutional
Court decision of Lebashe . Without necessarily deciding the
appealability issue, what is applicable to this matter is that 10
there is a part B application . That part B application has the
effect, if it is determined, either granted or refused, to affect
th e deter mined part A. This part A, whether part B is refused
or granted , Its route or effect will end.
The granting or refusal of part B, practically, would
mean the end of part A. Without deciding the question
whether refusing an inter im interdict is appealable or not, the
approach I take is the practical effect of an appeal in relation
to this matter.
My take is that part B is having huge effect on this 20
matter, and i t shall be pointless for this Court if the leave to
appeal is granted, because the Court of appeal would still
ask the question about the part B given its impact o n any
possible order the appeal Court may make, being that , if it is
for the practical benefit of the applicant to grant an interim
107022/2025 /rb JUDGMENT
16-10-2025
4
inter dict . But that inter dict would only pe nd the outcome of
part B.
Now, the most important part would be part B ,
because that is where all these issues would be dealt with.
My opinion is that another court will not come to a different
conclusion . Secondly, the issue of compelling reasons. Mr
D’ Oliveira made reference to case law that suggests that an
interdict may be issued against an exercise of statutory
power. He suggested that this Court held otherwise, and as
a result, the re are conflicting decisions. I do not think that 10
that is the case.
This Court s tated that one may obtain an interdict
against an exercise of statutory power for as long as one can
show the requirement s. So there is no conflict that requires
resolution by a appeal court. For that reason, I do not form
an opinion that there are compelling reasons for this appeal
to be heard . The SCA had pointed out quite clearly that the
compelling reasons would also take into account the
prospects of success on appeal. Having found that there are
no prospects of success , I take a view that th is other 20
requirement has not been satisfied.
For all the above reasons, I make the following
order. The application for leave to appeal is refused, I
make no order as to costs.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
107022/2025 /rb JUDGMENT
16-10-2025
5
……… …..
MOSHOAN A, J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE : …………………
10 NOVEMBER 2025
TRANSCRIBER’S CERTIFICATE
NEASA //MINISTER OF FINANCE AND LABOUR
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that so far as it is audible to me ,
the aforegoing is a true and correct transcript of the proceedings
recorded by means of a digital recorder in the matter between the
parties stated above:
CASE NUMBER : 107022/2025
RECORDED AT : PRETORIA
DATE HELD : 16-10-2025
NUMBER OF PAGES : 5
TRANSCRIBER : ROXANNE BECKER
DATE COMPLETED: 7-11-2025
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES / PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED