Booi v Wesley Pretorius & Associates (1212/2020) [2021] ZAECMHC 21 (29 June 2021)

Booi v Wesley Pretorius & Associates (1212/2020) [2021] ZAECMHC 21 (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. Section 145 of the Labour Relations Act does not make the filing of a security bond a prerequisite for the hearing of a review application. The right to review is not conditional on security; rather, security or a stay only suspends the operation of the arbitration award. The plaintiff did not plead that the security bond was defective or not to the satisfaction of the Labour Court, and thus cannot claim that he was prevented from enforcing the award. The delay in payment and the fact that payment was made by the ADM, not the defendant, does not establish a cause of...

Citation
[2021] ZAECMHC 21
Parties
Plaintiff: Mlungisi Booi; Defendant: Wesley Pretorius & Associates
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2021
Case Number
1212/2020
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.
Judges
L. Rusi
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Cause of Action, Security Bond, Review Application, Damages Claim
Civil Procedure Labour Law Exception Procedure Cause of Action Security Bond Review Application Damages Claim

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 Does the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim disclose a valid cause of action against the defendant?
  2. 2 Is the filing of a security bond a prerequisite for the hearing of a review application under section 145 of the LRA?
  3. 3 Is the defendant liable for damages arising from the delay in payment following the dismissal of the review application?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim, taken as they stand, do not disclose a cause of action. Section 145 of the Labour Relations Act does not make the filing of a security bond a prerequisite for the hearing of a review application. The right to review is not conditional on security; rather, security or a stay only suspends the operation of the arbitration award. The plaintiff did not plead that the security bond was defective or not to the satisfaction of the Labour Court, and thus cannot claim that he was prevented from enforcing the award. The delay in payment and the fact that payment was made by the ADM, not the defendant, does not establish a cause of...

Court Disposition

Exception upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.

Orders

  • The exception is upheld with costs, such costs to include 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.