MABONA v EXARRO FERROALLOYS (PTY) LTD [2026] ZALCJHB 112; Case No: JR 590/23

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 7 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg

Name of Judge(s): Lennox AJ

Summary of Factual Matrix: 

The First Respondent sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Court delivered on 30 July 2025. The Court had previously found that the Second Respondent (arbitrator) erred in the manner in which the arbitration was concluded, requiring the intervention of the Court. The application for leave to appeal was opposed by the Applicant.

Summary of Findings:

"[5] In Seatlholo and others v Chemical Energy Paper Printing Wood and Allied Workers Union and others, 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... 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...'"

"[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 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 justice."

"[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 intervention of the Court."

Applying the stringent test for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, the Court found no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. The Court remained satisfied that the arbitrator had erred in the conduct of the arbitration, justifying the Court's prior intervention. No compelling interests warranted hearing the appeal in the interests of justice.

Order:

"The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs."