IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number: 74946/2019
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:NO
(3) REVISED: NO
DATE: 30/04/2026 SI E
In the matter between:
NELSON MBOMBI Applicant
and
MINISTER OF POLICE Respondent
JUDGMENT: APPLI CATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MZUZU, AJ
[1] The applicant applied for leave to appeal against the whole judgment and
including the order as to costs delivered on 22 May 2025.
[2] The applicant raised numerous grounds for leave to appeal and filed submissions
in writing and verbally, and the respondent in opposition of the application for leave to
appeal, filed submissions as well in writing and verbally.
[3] I have taken time to peruse and consider same, and I do not intend to repeat
those herein.
The test for leave to appeal
[4] It is trite that there is no automatic right of appeal against a judgment of the High
Court. To be entitled to leave to appeal, an applicant in an application for leave to
appeal must satisfy the court that there is a reasonable prospect that another court
would come to a different conclusion.1
[5] Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act2 provides that leave to appeal may only
be granted if the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success or if there is some
compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. The Superior Courts Act has
raised the threshold for granting leave to appeal.
[6] The test is not whether there is a possibility that another court could come to a
different conclusion, the test is whether there is a reasonable prospect that another
court would come to a different conclusion3. The test indicates a measure of certainty
that another court will differ from the court whose judgment is sought to be appealed
against.
[7] Appeals should be limited to matters where there is a reasonable prospect that
the factual matrix could receive a different treatment or where there is some legitimate
dispute on the law.
[8] In Seatlholo and other v Chemical Energy Paper Printing Wood and Allied
Workers Union and others,4 this court confirmed that the test applicable in applications
for leave to appeal is stringent and held as follows:
1 See Woolworths Ltd v Matthews [1999\ 3 BIJ,R 288 (LC).
2 Act IO of 2013.
3 Based on the facts that is before this comt on questions of law and that was stated in the matter of Miller, 1957 (4) SA 542
(A).
4 (2016) 3711..11485 (LC) al para 3.
"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 word "would" in s17(1)(a)(i) is indicative
of a raising of the threshold since previously, all was required for the applicant to demonstrate
was that there was a reasonable prospect that another court might come to a different
conclusion (see Dantjie Community and others v Crocodile valley Citrus Company (Ply) Ltd
and another (7512008) [2015] ZALCC 7 (28 July 2018). 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 law (See the judgment by Davis JA in Martin and East (Ply)
Ltd v NUM (2014) 35 ILJ 2399 (LAC), and also Kruger v S 2014 (1) SACR 369 (SCA) and
ruling by Steenkamp J in Oasys Innovations (Ply) Ltd v Henning and another (C536/15, 6
November 2015)."
[9] In deciding this application for leave to appeal, I am also guided by the dicta of
Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) where it held in Oexgroup (Pyt) Ltd v Trustco Group
International (Ply) Ltd and o/hers 5 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. It should in this case have been
deployed by refusing leave to appeal."
Evaluation of the Application for Leave to Appeal
deployed by refusing leave to appeal."
Evaluation of the Application for Leave to Appeal
[1 O] I have duly considered the written and verbally submissions advanced in support
of, and in opposition to, the application for leave to appeal, with due regard to the
grounds for leave to appeal by applying the applicable legal test.
[11] It is evident that the application does not meet the high threshold for leave to
appeal to be granted as the application is rather a record of the Plaintiff's
5 20 I 3 (6) SA 520 (SCA) at para 24.
dissatisfaction with the outcome and re-argument of the issues already ventilated,
submission of new evidence that was not submitted at the hearing of the trial and
decided upon during the trial.
[12] The purpose of an appeal to the LAC is not to provide an applicant with an
avenue for re-argument or an opportunity to re-open what has already been finally
adjudicated. An appeal is limited to matters where there is a reasonable prospect that
another court would find differently.
[1 3] The applicant failed to prove that an appeal would have a reasonable prospect
of success on each of the grounds upon which he relies and failed to pass the test
provided in section 17 of Superior Court Act.
Order
[14] In the premises I make the following order:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
APPEARANCES
Heard on
Judgment delivered on
For the Applicant
For the Respondent
: 25 March 2026
: 30 April 2026
N MZUZU
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
PRETORIA
: Adv D Thumbathi
: Adv M.V Magagane