REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA
HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK
Case no: LCA 50/2011
In the matter between:
LEON JANSE VAN RENSBURG APPLICANT
WILDERNESS AIR NAMIBIA (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: Van Rensburg v Wilderness Air Namibia (Pty) Ltd (LCA 50/2011)  NAHCMD 1 (21 September 2012)
Coram: MILLER AJ
Heard: 20 July 2012
Delivered: 21 September 2012
The application is dismissed.
 This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Namibia against the judgment delivered by me on 4 April 2012.
 Those proceedings concerned an appeal by the present respondent against an arbitration award made by an arbitrator in the office of the Labour Commissioner, in terms of the Labour Act, 2007.
 In my judgment of 4 April 2012 I allowed the appeal and set aside the arbitrator’s award.
 For the purposes of this application it is necessary to once more summarize and state the salient facts upon which the proceedings from their inception turned. They are these:
(a) The respondent conducts an air charter service;
(b) During the times relevant to this case the applicant was employed by the respondent as a pilot;
(c) On 9 May 2010 the appellant was about to depart from Epacha airport with an aircraft of the respondent with registration number V5-ELE. On board were twelve passengers;
(d) The applicant maneuvered the aircraft onto the runway without visually checking that the runway was clear;
(e) In fact another aircraft piloted by one Brasler was in the process of taking off using that runway;
(f) A collision between the two aircraft was narrowly avoided;
(g) The applicant was subjected to internal disciplinary proceedings at which it was found that the applicant was negligent although not grossly so;
(h) The issue of the applicant’s negligence was never placed in issue;
(i) Having considered the matter the respondent imposed the sanction quoted in paragraph 11 of the judgment;
(j) The applicant then instituted proceedings before the Labour Commissioner;
(k) Following an arbitration hearing the Labour Commissioner the arbitrator appointed to conduct the proceedings set aside the sanction imposed by the respondent and replaced it with the sanction quoted in paragraph (16) of my judgment;
 The question that now arises is whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court will come to a conclusion different to the one I came to. I will do no more than repeat my reasoning and conclusions in paragraphs 18 to 24 of my judgment.
 I am not persuaded that there is a reasonable prospect that another court will differ from that.
 In the result the application is dismissed.
P J Miller
APPELLANT : B FORD
Instructed by Hohne & Co., Windhoek.
RESPONDENT: C J MOUTON
Instructed by Koep & Partners, Windhoek