IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(HELD AT JOHANNESBURG)
CASE NO: JR1269/2020
In the matter between:
NATIONAL EDUCATION HEALTH AND
ALLIED WORKERS UNION OBO MEMBERS Applicant
and
ESSENTIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE First Respondent
SIBONGISENI SITHOLE NO Second Respondent
INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION Third Respondent
Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: Judgment is handed down by service on the parties, by email , on 27
March 2026.
JUDGMENT
(1) Reportable: NO
(2) Of interest to other Judges: NO
Signature Date
2
DANIELS J
Introduction
[1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the order and judgment of
this court handed down on 5 March 2025. The judgment deals inter alia
with the limitations on the right to strike, and consideration of the
Electoral Act No. 73 of 1998 and the Municipal Electoral Act No. 27 of
2000. There appeared, at face value, to be a conflict between these Acts.
The dispute involved important questions of law which have not
previously arisen.
Legal principles and analysis
[2] The third respondent filed its opposing submissions and sought
condonation for the late filing of such submissions. There are several
factors to be considered, to determine whether it is in the interest of
justice to grant condonation. The court must consider
1 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. Importantly, here, the period of the delay was
short, the delay was adequately explained, and the third respondent has
prospects of success. I considered the various other factors as well. I n
the exercise of my discretion, it is in the interests 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.
1 Grootboom v National Prosecuting Authority & another (2014) 35 ILJ 121 (CC) at paras 50 and
51
3
This dispute concerns inter alia limitation s of the right to strike, the
jurisdiction of the Essential Services Committee, and the interpret ation of
conflicting legislation. These are important questions of law and involve
issues of public importance. In the circumstances , there are compelling
reasons to grant leave to appeal.
Conclusion
[4] In the circumstances, an order is made as follows:
(1) Condonation is granted for the late filing of the third respondent’s
opposing submissions,
(2) The application for leave to appeal is granted,
(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