Nogxolo Bigboy v National Bargaining Council for the Private Security Sector, JP Hanekom N.O., and Risk&Co/Atcoglo [2026] ZALCCT 64

Seat of Court: The Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town

Date Delivered: 10 April 2026

Factual Summary: 

The Applicant applied for leave to appeal against a judgment of this Court dated 14 October 2025, which dismissed his application to review and set aside an arbitration award of Commissioner JP Hanekom. The award, issued on 7 February 2024 under the auspices of the National Bargaining Council for the Private Security Sector, upheld the substantive and procedural fairness of the Applicant's dismissal by the Third Respondent (Atcoglo). The Applicant's submissions in support of the application for leave to appeal were filed late, and he sought condonation for such delay. The application for leave to appeal was opposed by the Third Respondent.

Legal Questions Considered:

1. The test for granting leave to appeal:

"Section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act provides that leave to appeal may only be granted where the judge is of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success, or there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard." [para 2] "The current test requires that the judge be satisfied that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success, a higher threshold than mere arguability." [para 3]

2. Whether the proposed grounds of appeal disclosed reasonable prospects of success:

"The applicant's six proposed grounds of appeal reprise, in substance, the same six grounds advanced on review. Each was individually considered, rejected on the facts, and assessed cumulatively for reasonableness." [para 13] "The proposed grounds disclose no legal misdirection, no misconceived enquiry, and no irrationality in the commissioner's approach or this Court's assessment thereof." [para 15]

3. Whether there existed a compelling reason to hear the appeal notwithstanding lack of reasonable prospects of success:

"The applicant raises no novel legal issue, identifies no conflicting judgments, advances no point of public importance, and discloses no jurisprudential uncertainty. There is accordingly no other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard." [para 19]

Order:

1. The application for condonation of the late filing of the applicant's submissions in support of the application for leave to appeal is granted.

2. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

3. There is no order as to costs.