THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: JR 590/23
In the matter between:
JOHANNA MABONA Applicant
and
EXARRO FERROALLOYS (PTY) LTD First Respondent
LERATO SIKWANE Second Respondent
COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
& ARBITRATION Third Respondent
Delivered: 7 April 2026
______________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________
LENNOX, AJ
(1) Reportable: Yes/No
(2) Of interest to other Judges: Yes/No
________________ 07-04-2026
Signature Date
[1] The First Respondent seeks leave to appeal against the whole of the
judgment of the Court delivered on 30 July 2025.
[2] The Court has been favoured with detailed submissions from both the
First Respondent and the Applicant, who 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 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 1 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 justice2.
[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.
[9] The Court is satisfied that the Second Respondent erred in the manner
in which the arbitration was concluded and that this required the
9ntervention of the Court.
[10] In the judgment no order was made as to costs. There is no reason to
grant them now.
[11] The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed with no
order as to costs.
1 2013 (6) SA 520 (SCA)
2 Ramakatsa v African National Congress [2021] ZASCA 31
_________________________
M.A. Lennox
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa