About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZALCCT 93
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Matthee v Oudtshoorn Local Municipality and Others (Application for Leave to Appeal) (C25/2023) [2026] ZALCCT 93 (9 June 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
Case
no:
C25/2023
(1)
Reportable Yes: Yes
(2)
Of interest to other Judges: Yes
(3)
Revised: yes
In
the matter between:
THOMAS
MATTHEE
Applicant
and
OUDTSHOORN
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
First Respondent
SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
BARGAINING
COUNCIL
Second Respondent
COMMISSIONER W
RIEKERT
Third Respondent
JUDGMENT ON
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MAY, AJ
Introduction
[1]
This is an unopposed application for leave
to appeal against my judgment and order handed down on 27 March 2026.
The test for leave to
appeal
[2]
Leave
to appeal is governed by
section
17(1)(a)
of
the
Superior Courts
Act, 2013
and
may only be granted where the Court is of the opinion that either (i)
the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success;
or (ii) there
is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
[3]
The main principles governing leave to
appeal are:
3.1 The
threshold is that a different court ‘
would
’
come to a different conclusion, not that it ‘
could
’
do so. The test is thus a stringent one.
[1]
3.2 An
applicant for leave to appeal must demonstrate, on proper grounds, a
realistic prospect
of success. It is not enough that the case is
arguable or not hopeless. There must be a sound and rational basis to
conclude that
another court would likely reach a different result.
[2]
3.3 A
compelling (meaning ‘
cogent;
strong; convincing
’
[3]
)
reason may lie in an important question of law or a discrete issue of
public importance with wider impact, but the merits nevertheless
remain vitally important and often decisive.
[4]
There
is, however, no closed list and each case turns upon its own facts.
[4]
Having considered the judgment and the
submissions made by the Applicant, I am not persuaded that the
applicant’s grounds
of appeal warrant a conclusion that an
appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or that any other
compelling reasons
exists why the appeal should be heard.
[5]
It follows therefore that the application
for leave to appeal should be dismissed.
Order
1.
The application for leave to appeal is
dismissed.
2.
No order is made as to costs.
C. May
Acting Judge of the
Labour Court of South Africa
9 June 2026
[1]
Seatlholo and
Others v Chemical, Energy, Paper, Printing, Wood and Allied Workers’
Union and Others
(2016)
37 ILJ 1485 (LC) at para 3.
[2]
Member
of the Executive Council for Health, Eastern Cape v Mkhitha and
Another
[2016]
ZASCA 176
(25
November 2016) at para 16;
City
Tshwana Metropolitan Municipality v Kleinot N.O. and Others
(Leave
to Appeal) [2025] ZALCJHB 314 (15 July 2025) at para 8.
[3]
Erasmus
Superior Court Practice
RS
5, 2025, D-108.
[4]
Caratco
(Pty) Ltd v Independent Advisory (Pty) Ltd
2020
(5) SA 35
(SCA)
at para 2.