IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(HELD AT CAPE TOWN)
CASE NO: C34/2025
In the matter between:
TASNEEM GOUS
Applicant
and
ANTHONY DOUGLAS JAMES First Respondent
GENESIS DISTRIBUTION PROJECTS (PTY) LTD Second Respondent
In re:
ANTHONY DOUGLAS JAMES Applicant
and
GENESIS DISTRIBUTION PROJECTS (PTY) LTD First Respondent
TASNEEM GOUS Second Respondent
Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: Judgment is handed down by service on the parties, by email , on 6
March 2026.
(1) Reportable: NO
(2) Of interest to other Judges: NO
Signature Date
2
JUDGMENT
DANIELS J
Introduction
[1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the order of this court issued
on 24 June 2025 and seeks condonation for the late filing of its
application for leave to appeal . To place the application in context, the
history is briefly summarised below:
1.1 Following hearings on 9 May and 24 June 2025, I found the applicant
guilty of contempt of court for her wilful and male fide refusal to
comply with a certified arbitration award of the CCMA, which required
the second respondent to reinstate the first respondent into its
employ. Reasons for the order was issued on 4 September 2025.
1.2 The applicant filed an application for leave to appeal, together with
an application for condonation. The application was then withdrawn.
1.3 On 26 September , the applicant filed a second application for leave
to appeal. In her application, the applicant alleges that:
1.3.1 There was no employment relationship between the first
respondent and the second respondent,
1
1 This issue was resolved by the CCMA default arbitration award, issued under case reference
WECT15761-21, which found that the first respondent was indeed employed by the second
respondent. The arbitration award was not rescinded or reviewed by the applicant.
3
1.3.2 The arbitration award was unenforceable because the
second respondent was deregistered,
1.3.3 This court misapplied section 200B of the Labour Relations
Act No. 66 of 1995 (“LRA”),
1.3.4 This court misapplied the law relating to contempt,
1.3.5 There were procedural irregularities during the hearing on 9
May 2025,
1.3.6 The court was biased against the applicant,
1.3.7 The order of contempt imposed punitive fines and the threat
of imprisonment on the applicant.
1.4 On 14 November, the applicant filed an application for condonation,
for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal, which the first
respondent elected not to oppose. Unfortunately, the condonation
application only came to the attention of the court during 2026.
1.5 Thereafter, the applicant filed an application for my recusal from the
application for leave to appeal and ‘ any further proceedings .’ The
application was heard on 16 January 2026, and judgment delivered
on 20 February. That application considered the alleged procedural
irregularities during the hearing on 9 May 2025. The application was
dismissed.
Legal principles and analysis
[2] The applicant seeks c ondonation for the late filing of its application for
leave to appeal. It is trite that condonation is not for the asking. There are
several factors to be considered, all of which must be considered to
determine whether it is in the interest of justice to grant condonation. The
4
court must consider2 inter alia the length of the delay; the explanation for
the delay; the prospects of success for the party seeking condonation;
the importance of the issues; the prejudice to the other party; and the
effect of the delay on the administration of justice. In this matter, it is
clear, the delay is relatively short. The explanation is reasonable and
sufficiently detailed. In essence, the applicant attempted to secure legal
representation but struggled to do so. Ultimately, she drafted the
application for leave to appeal, and the condonation application, herself.
The applicant has prospects of success given that the dispute dealt with
unusual circumstances and the order was somewhat novel. Further, the
court of appeal may well differ with the court in respect of its approach to
section 200B of the LRA. The dispute is of importance to the parties but
also has implications for the labour relations community. There is no
prejudice to the other parties and there is no adverse impact on the
administration of justice. In the circumstances, it is in the interest of
justice to grant condonation.
[3] Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act No. 10 of 2013 provides that
leave to appeal should only be granted by the court a quo where it is of
the view that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or
there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
Leave to appeal should not be granted unless there is a sound and
rational basis to conclude that there is a reasonable prospect of
success.
3
[4] The applicant submits there were procedural irregularities in the manner
that the court conducted the proceedings, and that the court was biased.
Those submissions are without merit and were fully dealt with in my
judgment on 20 February 2026. I do not accept that the appeal court
2 Grootboom v National Prosecuting Authority & another (2014) 35 ILJ 121 (CC) at paras 50 and
51
51
3 MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v Mkhitha and Another [2016] JOL 36940 (SCA) at paras 16 –
17
5
would come to a different conclusion. Leave to appeal is denied in these
respects.
[5] The applicant sets out several other grounds for leave to appeal. She
contends that the court held her personally liable under section 200B of
the LRA despite the absence of proof of fraud or proof that there were
“associated employers”. She contends that the court erred in the manner
it applied the principles applicable to contempt. She contends the court
erred by directing her to reinstate the first respondent into the employ of
a deregistered company. I accept that the court of appeal may differ in its
approach to section 200B. I accept also that the appeal court may differ
in its approach to the contempt order, given the second respondent’s
deregistration. The issues the court engaged with, and its approach,
were novel and there are compelling reasons why leave to appeal should
be granted.
[6] Once leave to appeal has been granted, the appellant will be required to
prosecute its appeal in accordance with the Rules of the Labour Appeal
Court, as amended.
4 Among other things, the appellant will be required
to deliver its notice of appeal and to file the appeal record, which it must
do so within the prescribed time periods. The record (which should
include the transcript of the hearing on 9 May ) should be professionally
done through a transcription agency which works with the court . I
mention all of this solely because the applicant is unrepresented and
may not understand the way forward.
Conclusion
[7] As earlier explained, it is in the interests of justice to grant condonation.
There are compelli ng reasons to grant leave to appeal, and there are
4 GN4775, G50608, published 3 May 2024
6
prospects of success on appeal . In the circumstances, an order is made
as follows:
(1) Condonation is granted for the late filing of the application for leave to
appeal,
(2) The application for leave to appeal is granted in relation to issues in
paras 1.3.2, 1.3.3 and 1.3.4,
(3) The costs of the application for leave to appeal are costs in the
appeal.
R Daniels
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa