1
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: J1993/22
In the matter between:
PUBLIC SERVANTS’ ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA
obo MEMBERS Applicant
and
ADVOCATE MARK THYS N.O. First Respondent
THE SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICE Second Respondent
Delivered: 7 April 2026
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
2
LENNOX, AJ
[1] The Second Respondent seeks leave to appeal as against a judgment of this
Court in which it was partially successful and partially unsuccessful on
opposing the review brought by the Applicant.
[2] The Court has been favoured with detailed submissions from both the Second
Respondent and the Applicant, which opposes the application for leave to
appeal.
[3] The findings herein have been delayed, which the Court regrets and
apologies for.
[4] Having considered the submissions, detailed as they are, the Court must
consider whether the requirements of section 17(1) of the Superior Court Act
No 10 of 2023 have been met or not.
[5] In Seatlholo and others v Chemical Energy Paper Printing Wood and Allied
Workers Union and others, [3] this Court confirmed that the test applicable in
applications for leave to appeal is stringent and held 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 s17(1)(a)(i) is 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 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
imperative of the expeditious resolution of labour disputes necessarily
3
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 (LAC), 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 (C 536/15, 6 November 2015).’
[6] In deciding this application for leave to appeal, the Court is also guided by
the dicta of the Supreme Court of Appeal where it held in Dexgroup (Pty) Ltd v
Trustco Group International (Pty) Ltd and others at paragraph 24 that:
‘…The need to obtain leave to appeal is a valuable tool in ensuring that
scarce judicial resources are not spent on appeals that lack merit.’
[7] The Court is not of the view that there are compelling interests which require
the appeal to be heard in the interests of justice1.
[8] Having consider the submissions the Court is of the view that there is no
possibility that another Court would come to a different conclusion. To the
contrary, the present application has failed to appreciate the judgment as
granted. It is a further example of the extent that the Second Respondent has
gone to avoid its obligations towards the Applicant and its members , an
approach which should not be condoned.
[9] In the judgment no order was made as to costs. In this matter the Court is
inclined to agree with the Applicant that the application should be dismissed
with costs.
[10] The application for leave to appeal is accordingl y dismissed and the Second
Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs.
1 Ramakatsa v African National Congress [2021] ZASCA 31
4
_________________________
M.A. Lennox
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa