AMCU and Others v Northam Platinum Ltd and Another (J1671/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 309; [2016] 11 BLLR 1151 (LC); (2016) 37 ILJ 2840 (LC) (19 August 2016)

AMCU and Others v Northam Platinum Ltd and Another (J1671/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 309; [2016] 11 BLLR 1151 (LC); (2016) 37 ILJ 2840 (LC) (19 August 2016)

The court held that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 8. There was an unexplained delay of approximately one month between the dismissal and the bringing of the application, which undermined any claim to urgency. The applicants did not provide sufficient detail or explanation for the delay, nor did they demonstrate exceptional circumstances or undue hardship beyond what is ordinarily experienced by dismissed employees. The court found that the alleged unlawfulness of the dismissal and financial hardship did not, in themselves, justify urgent relief. Furthermore, the applicants had already referred an automatic unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA, indicating...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 309
Parties
Applicant: AMCU; Applicant: Individuals listed in Annexure “XPL1”; Respondent: Northam Platinum Ltd; Respondent: NUM
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 August 2016
Case Number
J1671/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike From the Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for want of urgency. Costs awarded against the applicants.
Judges
S Snyman
Legal Topics
Urgent Application, Unlawful Dismissal, Mine Health and Safety Act, Constitutional Rights, Breach of Contract
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgent Application Unlawful Dismissal Mine Health and Safety Act Constitutional Rights Breach of Contract

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AMCU

Applicant

Individuals listed in Annexure “XPL1”

Applicant

Northam Platinum Ltd

Respondent

NUM

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike From the Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants established sufficient urgency to justify the hearing of their application on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged unlawfulness of the dismissal itself constitutes urgency.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants can obtain substantial redress in due course through ordinary proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 8. There was an unexplained delay of approximately one month between the dismissal and the bringing of the application, which undermined any claim to urgency. The applicants did not provide sufficient detail or explanation for the delay, nor did they demonstrate exceptional circumstances or undue hardship beyond what is ordinarily experienced by dismissed employees. The court found that the alleged unlawfulness of the dismissal and financial hardship did not, in themselves, justify urgent relief. Furthermore, the applicants had already referred an automatic unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA, indicating...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for want of urgency. Costs awarded against the applicants.

Orders

  • The applicants’ application is struck from the roll for want of urgency.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent occasioned by such striking off, including the costs of two counsel.