(1} Reportable Yes o
(2) Of interest to other Judges: Yes o
(3) Revised
Signature
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOW
In the matter between:
VERSAPAK(PTY)LTD
and
METAL AND ENGINEERING BARGAINING
COUNCIL
A SINGH-BHOOPCHAND N.O.
Heard:
JUDGMENT
MKHATSHWA, AJ
Introduction
Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
2
[1] This is an opposed application for leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court
against the whole judgement of this Court delivered on 15 January 2026.
[2] The Applicant in this matter, at the review application was Mpact Operations
(Pty) Ltd (the Old Employer). According to the Applicant in this application for
leave to appeal, the Old Employer was taken over by the Applicant.
the different citation.
Grounds of appeal
[3] The Applicant argues that this Court erred in finding that:
[4]
3.1 the Second Respondent had not arrived at an
in finding that the toilet paper found in
21 October 2022 was not the property
3.2 the Second Respondent had n reasonable conclusion
horized possession of said in finding that the Employee w
22.
In support of the above
consider the followi
4.1 ence of Ms Genene Barnard that the toilet paper
ployee's possession on 21 October 2022 is unique in
e found in retail stores and is bought directly from a
by the Applicant.
email from the service provider that the toilet paper cannot be
purchased by the general public.
The third Respondent's failure to address, let alone deny, the allegation
as to the uniqueness of this toilet paper in the founding papers.
4.4 The Employee's concession under cross examination that the toilet
paper which he brought to his disciplinary hearing was different to the
3
toilet paper which belonged to the Applicant and which was found in
the Employee's possession on 21 October 2022.
The test for an application for leave to appeal
[5] Applications for leave to appeal are regulated by Rule 67 of the Rules for the
Conduct of Proceedings in the Labour Court. The Rule does not deal ·;tt the
test for the granting or otheiwise of the application.
[6] Guidance is to be found in section 17 of the Superior Gou
was made in Dexgroup (Ply) Ltd v Trust Group lnterna
[7]
[8]
[9]
others2 that the need to obtain leave to appeal is a luabl
that scarce judicial resources are not spent on aR
In terms of section 17(1 )(a)(i) of the Superior eave to appeal may
- of the opinion that the only be given where the judge or judge
appeal would have a reasonable pros
·n Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen3 that
to the merits of the pro
the use by the legi§'
bar of the test that has to be applied
eal before leave should be granted in that
word "would" indicates a measure of certainty
om the court whose judgement is sought to be
s also been held that the use by the legislature of the
~1;t!.,.1!L\rmr·17 (1) is a further indication of a more stringent test4.
appealed a
'tr;·
emphasized by the Supreme Court of Appeal in MEG for
em Cape v Mkhitha5, where Schippers AJA held as follows:
"[16] Once again it is necessary to say that leave to appeal, especially to
this court, must not be granted unless there truly is a reasonable
1 Act 10 of 2013.
2 2013 (6) SA 520 (SCA) at para 13.
3 2014 JDR 2325 (LCC). See also: Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions v Democratic
Alliance In re Democratic Alliance v Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions (19577/09) [2016]
ZAGPPHC 489 (24 June 2016) at para 25.
4 See: Matoto v Free State Gambling and Liquor Authority (4629/2015) [2017] ZAFSHC 80 (8 June
2017).
5 2016 JDR 2214 (SCA) at paras 16 and 17. See also: Black Bond Surfacing (Pty) Ltd v Dynapac Ltd
Case Number 59158/2021 dated 7 December 2022
4
prospect of success. Section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of
2013 makes it clear that leave to appeal may only be given where the
judge concerned is of the opinion that the appeal would have a
reasonable prospect of success; or there is some other compelling
reason why it should be heard.
(17] An applicant for leave to appeal must convince the court o
grounds that there is a reasonable prospect or realistic
success on appeal. A mere possibility of success, an
one that is not hopeless, is not enough. There
rational basis to conclude that there is a re
success on appeal."
[1 O] The issues raised in this application (which
review application) were ventilated in the arbit
by this Court in the review application.
[11] Having considered the grounds advan Applicant for leave to appeal
[12]
and the Third Respondent's ·Ied submissions in response thereto, this
compelling reason,;.,
judgments o
no reasonable prospects of success
different conclusion. There is also no other
should be heard as there are no conflicting
and. Therefore, there is no basis on which this
sent application.
There is no order as to costs.
M. Mkhatshwa
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa