THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Case No: JS922 /2020
In the matter between:
DANIEL JACOBUS COTZEE Applicant
and
ABSA BANK LIMITED Respondent
Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: 24 February 2026
JUDGMENT - APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MAHALELO, AJ
Introduction
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the whole of this court's
judgment and order delivered on 30 December 2025, in which the court found
that the dismissal of the applicant by the respondent for operational reasons
was unfair and ordered reinstatement.
[2] For convenience, the parties are referred to as in the main judgment . The
application for leave to appeal is opposed by the applicant.
(1) Reportable Yes/No
(2) Of interest to other Judges: Yes/No
(3) Revised
____________ ______________
Signature Date
2
[3] Several grounds of appeal were raised in support of this application. It is
unnecessary to list them in this judgment. Suffice to mention that the applicant
submitted that those gr ounds are meritless and should be rejected by the
court.
Test for Leave to Appeal
[4] Section 17 (1) of the Superior Court Act 1 deals with the relief of leave to
appeal. In terms thereof, leave to appeal may only be granted (a) where a
judge/s are of the opinion that (a) t he appeal “would” not “may”, have
reasonable prospects of success (b) there are some compelling reasons why
the appeal should be heard, including the existence of conflicting judgments
on the matter under consideration.
[5] It has been confirmed that the use of the words “only” and “would” implies that
the threshold is set too high to a point where this Court must only give leave in
instances where a definitive prospect exist that the appeal would succeed.
[6] The court in Mgedezi Gasbat Nxumalo v The National Bargaining Council for
the Chemical Industry (NBCCI) and Others 2 conveniently summari sed the
approach to an application for leave to appeal as follows:
‘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
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 section 17(1)(a)(i) are
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 and Others v Crocodile Valley Citrus Company (Pty) Ltd and
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
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
1 Act 10 of 2013.
2 (JR 1170/2023) [2016] ZALCJHB 212 (15 June 2016) Unreported.
3
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 and East(Pty) Ltd v NUM (2014) 35 ILJ 2399
(LCA), and also Kruger v S 2014(1) SACR 369 (SCA) and the ruling by
Steenkamp, J in Oasys Innovations (Pty Ltd v Henning and Another
(C536/15, 6 November 2015).’
Conclusion
[7] I have had regard to the test for leave to appeal and the submissions in terms
of rule 67(5) by the parties . I concluded that t here are reasonable prospects
on appeal.
[8] In the circumstances, leave to appeal succeeds.
Order
1. Application for leave to appeal is granted.
2. Costs in the appeal.
_______________________
MB Mahalelo
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances
For the Applicant: Adv. G. L. Van Der Westhuizen, instructed by: Louw
Erasmus Incorporated
For the Respondent: J. Norval of Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Incorporated