Bogoshi v Servest Security (J1387/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 154 (19 June 2019)

Bogoshi v Servest Security (J1387/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 154 (19 June 2019)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency, as she delayed taking action after being informed of the change in her employment status. Financial hardship does not, on its own, justify urgent relief. The settlement agreement made provision for appointment to a permanent controller post only if a vacancy arose, which did not occur. The applicant did not demonstrate that a vacancy was available or that the respondent breached the agreement. Furthermore, alternative remedies were available to the applicant under the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act. The application was ill-conceived and did not warrant urgent attention or...

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 154
Parties
Applicant: Mashala Alettah Bogoshi; Respondent: Servest Security
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 June 2019
Case Number
J1387/19
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Dismissed
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Specific Performance, Settlement Agreement, Breach of Contract, Alternative Remedy
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgent Interdict Specific Performance Settlement Agreement Breach of Contract Alternative Remedy

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mashala Alettah Bogoshi

Applicant

Servest Security

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to urgent relief for reinstatement of full salary and position as reliever pending appointment to permanent controller post.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent breached the terms of the settlement agreement incorporated into the contract of employment.
  3. 3 Whether urgency is self-created and whether alternative remedies are available to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency, as she delayed taking action after being informed of the change in her employment status. Financial hardship does not, on its own, justify urgent relief. The settlement agreement made provision for appointment to a permanent controller post only if a vacancy arose, which did not occur. The applicant did not demonstrate that a vacancy was available or that the respondent breached the agreement. Furthermore, alternative remedies were available to the applicant under the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act. The application was ill-conceived and did not warrant urgent attention or...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicant’s urgent application is dismissed with costs.