A group of members of the Democratic Nursing Organisation of South Africa (Denosa) has filed an application for leave to appeal a Labour Court ruling that struck their urgent application off the roll with costs, arguing the court erred in both its factual and legal findings.
The applicants, led by Kgabo Edwin Maleka, are seeking to overturn the judgment delivered by Judge Mandy Whitcher on 16 March 2026.
In that ruling, the court found that the matter lacked urgency and should not have been heard on an urgent basis.
In their appeal papers, the applicants maintain that the court misdirected itself by focusing on their September 2025 suspensions, rather than the issuing of disciplinary notices on 23 February 2026, which they argue constituted the true trigger for urgent legal intervention.
They insist they acted promptly after receiving the notices, having spent months pursuing internal union remedies.
“The judgment contains multiple errors of law and fact. The court failed to apply binding precedent, misapplied the urgency analysis, and accepted an uncorroborated version without proper scrutiny. There is a reasonable prospect that the Labour Appeal Court would come to a different conclusion.
“Alternatively, there are compelling reasons why the appeal should be heard, including the importance of clarifying the interpretation of union constitutions and the application of urgency principles where internal remedies have been pursued.
“The applicants respectfully pray that leave to appeal be granted,” the applicants state in court papers.
ALSO READ: Clicks nurse claims suspension is payback for reporting abuse
Suspensions
The dispute stems from internal disciplinary processes within Denosa’s Tshwane regional leadership, where members were suspended and later charged.
The applicants argue that the regional executive committee acted beyond its powers, alleging that the suspensions were imposed without due process and in violation of the union’s constitution.
Judge Whitcher, in her ruling, accepted that the union structures had the authority to act and was not persuaded that immediate court intervention was warranted.
The court also declined to interdict the disciplinary proceedings, effectively allowing them to continue.
However, the applicants now argue that this finding failed to properly consider established legal principles and relevant case law. They further challenge the court’s acceptance of evidence relating to alleged dual union membership, claiming it was insufficiently tested and unreliable.
Central to their appeal is the contention that unlawful suspensions taint subsequent disciplinary proceedings. They argue that allowing the hearings to proceed would result in a “manifest injustice”.
The Labour Court will now decide whether there are reasonable prospects that another court, likely the Labour Appeal Court, could reach a different conclusion.
No hearing date has been announced.
NOW READ: Gauteng moves to fill hundreds of ICU nurse vacancies
About the Author
