Booi v Wesley Pretorius & Associates (EL 1212/2020) [2021] ZAECELLC 19 (29 June 2021)

Booi v Wesley Pretorius & Associates (EL 1212/2020) [2021] ZAECELLC 19 (29 June 2021)

The court held that the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim, taken as they stand, do not disclose a cause of action against the defendant. The Labour Relations Act does not make the filing of a security bond a prerequisite for the hearing of a review application, and the plaintiff's assertion to the contrary is legally incorrect. The delay in payment and the fact that ADM, rather than the defendant, effected payment do not establish liability on the defendant's part. The plaintiff failed to plead facts that would entitle him to enforce the award during the review proceedings or to claim damages from the defendant. Accordingly, the exception was upheld.

Citation
[2021] ZAECELLC 19
Parties
Plaintiff: Mlungisi Booi; Defendant: Wesley Pretorius & Associates
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2021
Case Number
EL 1212/2020
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld; plaintiff's particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action.
Judges
L. Rusi
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Cause of Action, Security Bond, Review Application, Damages Claim, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Labour Law Exception Procedure Cause of Action Security Bond Review Application Damages Claim Costs Award

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mlungisi Booi

Plaintiff

Wesley Pretorius & Associates

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim disclose a cause of action against the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the filing of a security bond by the defendant was a prerequisite for the Labour Court to entertain the review application.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in payment and the identity of the payor (ADM vs defendant) give rise to a claim for damages against the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim, taken as they stand, do not disclose a cause of action against the defendant. The Labour Relations Act does not make the filing of a security bond a prerequisite for the hearing of a review application, and the plaintiff's assertion to the contrary is legally incorrect. The delay in payment and the fact that ADM, rather than the defendant, effected payment do not establish liability on the defendant's part. The plaintiff failed to plead facts that would entitle him to enforce the award during the review proceedings or to claim damages from the defendant. Accordingly, the exception was upheld.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; plaintiff's particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action.

Orders

  • The exception is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.
  • The plaintiff may, within 15 days of the date of this judgment, serve notice of intention to amend his particulars of claim.