(i)
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Case No: 2025 – 075712
As Consolidated with CASE NO: J2896/18
In the matter between:
THE REGISTRAR OF LABOUR RELATIONS Applicant
and
SIPHO ERIC SONO N.O. First Respondent
(Administrator of the Chemical, Energy Paper, Printing,
Wood and Allied Workers' Union)
CHEMICAL, ENERGY, PAPER, PRINTING, WOOD AND
ALLIED WORKERS' UNION (Under Administration) Second Respondent
GERHARD VOSLOO Third Respondent
CEPPWAWU INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Fourth Respondent
Decided : In Chambers
Delivered : This judgment was handed down electronically by uploading on
Caselines; and circulation to the parties' legal representatives by
email; and publication on the Labour Court’s website and SAFLII.
The date for hand-down is deemed to be on 16 March 2026
JUDGMENT – LEAVE TO APPEAL
(1) Reportable: Yes/NO
(2) Of interest to other Judges: Yes/No
(3) Revised
___________ _______________
Signature Date
2
TLHOTLHALEMAJE, J
Introduction:
[1] In this application, the First and Second Respondents seek leave to appeal
against the whole of the judgment (with the exception of certain conclusions)
and order of this Court delivered on 28 January 2026. The application is
opposed by both the Applicant (Registrar) and the Third Respondent (which is
referred to as “CI”) in the main judgment.
[2] The background and the facts leading to the consolidated applications and the
appointment of Sono as Administrator of the Union , are summarised in detail
in the main judgment, and there is no need to burden this judgment with those
issues.
[3] Before the Court leading to the impugned judgment, were two consolidated
applications brought under the provisions of section 103A of the LRA. In the
first application (‘Removal Application’), t he Registrar sought that the
administration of the Second Respondent ( Union) be extended, and that the
First Respondent (Sono) be removed and replaced by the Third Respondent
(Vosloo) as the Administrator . In t he second application (counter -
application)(‘Extension Application’), Sono had essentially agreed with the
relief pertaining to the extension of the administration of the Union. He had
however sought that his tenure as administrator of the Union be extended.
[4] The application for leave to appeal is supported by submissions spanning 50
pages. These can be distilled into twelve grounds upon which leave to appeal
is sought. Essentially, Sono challenges the judgment of the Court and asserts
material factual misdirection , failures to apply evidentiary principles, failure to
exercise discretion under section 103A(5) of the LRA, procedural unfairness
and misdirection, and misapplication of legal principles.
[5] Leave to appeal is also sought on the basis that the matter raised before the
Court important questions concerning the proper application of Section 103A
of the LRA, including the limits of judicial supervision over union
of the LRA, including the limits of judicial supervision over union
administration, the evidentiary standards applicable to the removal of an
administrator in motion proceedings, and the distinction between outcome
3
based dissatisfaction and conduct based culpability. It was submitted that t he
judgment implicated the manner in which serious adverse findings such as
mala fides and breach of fiduciary duty may be made against a court
appointed administrators without oral evidence. The contention was further
that the matter warranted consideration by the Labour Appeal Court given the
broader significance of the issues to the administration of trade unions and the
exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under the LRA.
The legal approach and application:
[6] The test in applications for leave to appeal is trite flowing from the provisions
of section 17 of the Superior Courts Act (SCA Act)
1. Various authorities2 have
reiterated that an applicant for leave to appeal faces a higher threshold, and
that such applications should not be granted unless there truly is a reasonable
prospect of success.
[7] Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge concerned is of the
opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or there
is some other compelling reason why it should be heard. Thus, an applicant
for leave to appeal must convince the court on proper grounds that there is a
reasonable prospect or realistic chance of success on appeal
3. A mere
possibility of success, an arguable case or one that is not hopeless, is not
enough. There must be a sound, rational basis to conclude that there is a
reasonable prospect of success on appeal 4. Even if the Court may be
unpersuaded of any prospects of success, a further enquiry is whether there
1 Act No 10 of 2013
Section 17(1)(a) provides that:-
“Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion
that-
(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”
conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration”
2See Ramakatsa and Others v African National Congress and Another [2021] JOL 49993 (SCA) at
para [10]; Seatlholo and others v Chemical Energy Paper Printing Wood and Allied Workers Union and
others (2016) 37 ILJ 1485 (LC) at para 3; Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen and 18 others 2014
JDR 2325 (LCC) at para 6; Mothule Inc Attorneys v The Law Society of the Northern Provinces and
Another [2017] ZASCA 17 para 18; Woolworths Ltd v Matthews [1999] 3 BLLR 288 (LC).
3 MEC for Health, Eastern Cape v Mkhitha and Another (1221/2015) [2016] ZASCA 176 (25 November
2016)
4 At paras 16 - 17
4
are compelling reasons to grant the leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(ii)
of the SCA Act5.
[8] Within the context of labour law, the Labour Appeal Court has since held that
this Court must take great care in ensuring a balance between expeditious
resolution of a dispute and the rights of the party which has lost when
considering applications for leave to appeal, and that there must be a
reasonable prospect that the factual matrix could receive a different treatment ,
or there is a legitimate dispute on the law that deserves attention on appeal
6.
Evaluation:
[9] Against the submissions made by or on behalf of Sono, and as against those
of the Registrar and the CI in opposition to the application for leave to appeal,
it can only be reiterated that there were three grounds upon which the removal
of Sono was sought. It was not in dispute that Sono had since his appointment
in March 2022 until the expiry of his term on 30 June 2025, failed to compile
and complete all the outstanding audited financial statements of 2018, 2019,
2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 as well as 2025 financial years.
[10] Inasmuch as he might have completed some of these statements, the fact
remains that he failed to carry out his mandate in that regard despite various
extensions of his tenure,. The failure to complete the financial statements
invariably impacted on the convening of the National Congress before and
after Sono’s tenure as administrator, which failure constituted the second
ground upon which his removal was sought.
[11] Sono had consistently attributed the failures in respect of the completion of the
financial statements and convening of National Congress, to the lack of the
necessary funding. This however on the common cause facts, turned out to be
5 Caratco (Pty) Ltd v Independent Advisory (Pty) Ltd 2020 (5) SA 35 (SCA) para 2; See also S v Smith
2012 (1) SACR 567 (SCA) at para 7, where it was held that:
2012 (1) SACR 567 (SCA) at para 7, where it was held that:
‘[w]hat the test of reasonable prospects of success postulates is a dispassionate decision,
based on the facts and the law, that a court of appeal could reasonably arrive at a conclusion
different to that of the trial court. In order to succeed, therefore, the appellant must convince
this court on proper grounds that he has prospects of success on appeal and that those
prospects are not remote, but have a realistic chance of succeeding. … There must, in other
words, be a sound, rational basis for the conclusion that there are prospects of success on
appeal’.
6 Martin and East (Pty) Limited v National Union of Mine Workers and others (2014) 35 ILJ 2399
(LAC).
5
untrue. This was so in that such funding, albeit conditional, had always been
available from the CI as the Union’s investment arm. The conditions merely
required accountability and transparency, which however Sono for reasons
that are neither acceptable nor reasonable, had refused to accept and abide
by. Sono’s unreasonable refusal to accept available funding was at the core of
the failures to ultimately place the Union in a position where it could run and
manage its own affairs, having failed to do so sinc e 2018. This unreasonable
posture was hardly in the interests of advancing Sono’s mandate, and further
constituted a breach of his fiduciary duties towards the Union and its members
as correctly pointed out on behalf of the CI.
[12] The third ground upon which Sono’s removal was sought related to his failures
in managing the Union’s funds. In this regard, it was not in dispute as already
set out in the main judgment that his predecessor, had helped herself to the
Union’s bank account on the basis that this was a set-off for amounts owed to
her during her tenure as Administrator. It was common cause that Sono as
guardian of the Union’s funds, had refused to recoup those funds let alone
pursue any process in recouping those funds. For reasons as set out in the
main judgment, Sono effectively condoned self -help, and again failed in his
fiduciary duties towards the Union and its members.
[13] In the end, the three grounds upon which the removal of Sono was sought
were indeed valid. The invariable conclusion to be reached in the light of the
grounds upon which leave to appeal is sought and the submissions in that
regard, is that this application does not meet the high threshold for leave to
appeal to be granted. It is apparent that t he application is merely Sono’s
disgruntlement with the outcome, and a re- argument of the issues already
ventilated and decided upon in the consolidated applications.
[14] Having reflected on my judgments and the conclusions reached therein, and
[14] Having reflected on my judgments and the conclusions reached therein, and
further having considered the submissions in opposition to the application,
clearly there can be no basis for any conclusion to be reached that Sono
enjoys any reasonable prospect that the LAC would come to a different
conclusion on the factual matrix, nor is there any legitimate dispute on the law
that deserves the attention of the LAC.
6
[15] On the opposite scale, it is not in the interests of the Union, which Sono
purportedly serves, to be placed in a position where an expeditious
resolution of its inability to run its own affairs remains elusive as a result
of Sono own interests. The continuous financially draining litigation which
Sono has relentlessly pursued, does not advance the interests of the
Union. It is therefore of substantial importance and in the interests of the
Union, that Vosloo, who is prepared to accept the conditional funding as
shall be provided by CI, to take over from Sono to ensure the Union’s
ultimate independence. Effectively there are no other compelling reasons
why the LAC should be burdened with having to hear this matter on
appeal, specifically when considered in the context of prospects of
success on the merits.
[16] Against the above conclusions, the following order is made;
Order:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2. There is no order as to costs
___________________
Edwin Tlhotlhalemaje
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa