THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
case No: JR2093/16
In the matter between:
SOUTH AFRICAN AIRWAYS (SOC) LIMITED Applicant
and
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
AND ARBITRATION First Respondent
COMMISSIONER BONGE MASOTE N.O. Second Respondent
NTM obo REGGY MASHEGO Third Respondent
Considered: In chambers
Delivered: 28 January 2026
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties'
representatives by email. The date for hand- down is deemed to be on 28
January 2026
LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT
SCHENSEMA, AJ
(1) Reportable Yes/No
(2) Of interest to other Judges: Yes/No
(3) Revised
____________ ______________
Signature Date
2
Introduction
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal brought by the third respondent
against the judgment of this Court handed down on 1 August 2025 and
furnished to the parties on the same date.
[2] In terms of th e judgment, the arbitration award issued by the second
respondent was reviewed and set aside in its entirety and substituted with
an award to the effect that the dismissal of the third respondent was both
procedurally and substantively fair.
[3] The third respondent’s notice of application for leave to appeal, together
with his written submissions and the applicant’s written submissions
opposing the application, came before this Court on 21 January 2026.
[4] As stated above, the parties received the judgment on 1 August 2025.
Accordingly, the notice of application for leave to appeal was required to be
filed on or before 22 August 2025. The third respondent failed to comply
with this time period and has further failed to file an application for
condonation in respect of the late filing of the notice of application for leave
to appeal.
[5] The third respondent likewise failed to timeously file his written
submissions, which were due on or before 17 September 2025, and has
similarly not sought condonation for the late filing thereof.
3
[6] It is trite that the failure to file a condonation application for non- compliance
with the stipulated time frames, results in the matter not being properly
before Court.
[7] In the absence of any application for condonation, no explanation has been
placed before this Court for the third respondent’s failure to comply with the
prescribed time frames as set out in r ule 67 of the Rules Regulating the
Conduct of the Proceedings of the Labour Court.
[8] In the premises, the following order is made:
Order
1. The application for leave to appeal is struck off for lack of jurisdiction.
2. There is no order as to costs.
_______________________
H. Schensema
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa