About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZALCCT 56
|
|
Mushroom and Things (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (Leave to Appeal) (C593-23) [2026] ZALCCT 56 (11 March 2026)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
Case no: C593/23
(1)
Reportable: Yes/No
(2)
Of interest to other Judges: Yes/No
(3)
Revised
In the matter between :
MUSHROOM
AND THINGS (PTY)LTD
Applicant
and
COMMISSION FOR
CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
AND
ARBITRATION (CCMA)
1
st
Respondent
GERALD
JACOBS
2
nd
Respondent
NKOSEMVELA HUBERT
MAGWANYA
3
rd
Respondent
Decided: In Chambers
Date:
11 / March / 2026
JUDGMENT:
LEAVE TO APPEAL
GURA, AJ
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal
brought by the Applicant against part of the judgment by this Court.
Delivered on 17
December 2025. Leave is sought on one ground only,
confined to the following aspects of the judgment:
1.1.
Ground 1: The Court’s failure, at
paragraph [43] of the judgment, to determine the Applicant’s
ground of review that
the Commissioner’s ground of review that
the Commissioner’s factual findings were irreconcilable with
his conclusion
on substantive fairness, a ground properly pleaded in
the founding affidavit and developed at length in the written heads
of argument.
1.2.
Thus, the Applicant is not seeking leave to
appeal against any other aspect of the judgment, save to state that a
successful appeal
will result in the award for retrospective
reinstatement being set aside, as well as the order for costs.
[2]
I have considered the grounds upon which
leave to appeal is sought and reflected on the judgment. I have also
borne in mind the
test applicable to applications of this nature. I
am not persuaded that the appeal has reasonable prospects of success
or that
another court will come to a different conclusion. All of
the issues set out in the notice of application for leave to appeal
were considered in the hearing.
[3]
I further take cognizance of the fact that
the judgment of this court went into length in relation to the
Contract of Employment
and
Repudiation
,
Caveat sub
scripto
and the parole evidence rule. The judgment by this Court is , in
actual fact , sounded like this Court’s Basic Principles
of
Contract and Specific Contracts lectures. I thus urge the Applicants
to again read the following paragraphs of the Award by
the
Commissioner: paragraphs 61,62,63 until 66,70 and 72.
[4]
Lastly,
the cutting-edge
stare
decisis
by Judge van Niekerk (as he then was), in the
SA
Broadcasting Corporation v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration & Others
[1]
at footnote 21 of the judgment of this Court from pages 15 to 16.
Thus, substantive fairness in relation to repudiation settled.In
a
nutshell, the Applicant may well succeed in a civil court suing for
damages. I reiterate the sentiments by Judge van Niekerk
in this
judgment as well, that the civil suit and or prospects of success the
Applicant herein may have for civil damages, cannot
and does not hold
water, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Act
[2]
.
[5]
The application for leave to appeal stands
to be dismissed.
[6]
In the result I make the following order.
Order
1.
Application for leave to appeal is
dismissed.
2.
There is no order as to costs.
L.
Gura
Acting
Judge of the Labour Court
of South Africa
[1]
(J6145/00)
[2002] ZALC 184
; (2003) 24 ILJ 211 (LC) (7 November 2002).
[2]
Act 66 of 1995, as amended.