AMCU OBO Joseph Letshesa Manoto v Matsopa Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Others

The Applicant (AMCU on behalf of Joseph Letshesa Manoto) had previously brought a review application challenging an arbitration award dated 29 November 2019 issued under case FSWK2952-19 by the CCMA (Second Respondent). The arbitrator (Third Respondent, Joseph Mzwandile Dlengezele N.O) had apparently found in favour of the employee. On 18 November 2024, the Labour Court reviewed and set aside the arbitration award and replaced it with an order that the dismissal of Joseph Letshesa Manoto was substantively fair. The Applicant then sought leave to appeal this judgment. The First Respondent (Matsopa Minerals) opposed the application for leave to appeal and filed late submissions, for which condonation was granted.

• Whether there was a reasonable prospect of success on appeal against the Labour Court's judgment that reviewed and set aside the arbitration award
• Whether there were compelling reasons why an appeal should be heard
• Whether the stringent test for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 was satisfied
• Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the First Respondent's submissions

1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 2. There is no order as to costs.

Leave to appeal in labour matters may only be granted where there is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal or some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, as required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. A reasonable prospect of success requires a sound, rational basis showing a realistic chance of success - a mere possibility, arguable case, or case that is not hopeless is insufficient. The applicant must convince the court on proper grounds that another court would come to a different conclusion on the same facts or that novel factual or legal material deserving appellate attention exists. The Labour Court must exercise caution in granting leave to appeal and must balance the competing interests of expeditious dispute resolution and the rights of the losing party.

The Court observed that it had reflected on its original judgment and the conclusions reached therein. The Court noted that the Labour Court must be cautious in granting leave to appeal and should consider the competing interests of the parties in ensuring a balance between the expeditious resolution of a dispute and the rights of the losing party, referencing Martin and East (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Mineworkers. While not essential to the decision, the Court's approach suggests that in labour matters, the threshold for leave to appeal remains high even where the underlying dispute concerns substantive fairness of dismissals, which are matters of significant importance to employees.

This judgment reinforces the stringent approach South African courts take to applications for leave to appeal in labour matters. It demonstrates the practical application of section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 in the labour law context, emphasizing that leave to appeal will not be granted unless there is a sound, rational basis to conclude there is a reasonable prospect of success. The case also illustrates the Labour Court's careful balancing of competing interests between expeditious dispute resolution and protecting parties' appeal rights, consistent with the Labour Appeal Court's guidance in Martin and East (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Mineworkers. It serves as a reminder that parties seeking to appeal labour law review decisions must present substantive grounds beyond mere disagreement with the court's findings.