Consolidated Workers Union of South Africa and Others v Masilela (9002/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 762 (23 November 2015)
The court found that the application did not comply with the Uniform Rules of Court, specifically Rule 6(1) and 7(1), as there was no resolution from the first applicant authorising the institution of proceedings, nor was there evidence that the second and first applicants authorised the third applicant to act on...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] ZAGPPHC 762
- Parties
- Applicant: Consolidated Workers Union of South Africa; Applicant: Charles Shibambo; Applicant: Lucky Vilakazi; Respondent: Thomas Masilela
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 9002/2015
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application Before the High Court
- Outcome
- Application struck off the roll with costs.
- Judges
- M V Semenya
- Legal Topics
- Locus Standi, Uniform Rules of Court, Point in Limine
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Consolidated Workers Union of South Africa
Applicant
Charles Shibambo
Applicant
Lucky Vilakazi
Applicant
Thomas Masilela
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application Before the High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have locus standi to institute proceedings.
- 2 Whether the application complies with Rule 6(1) and 7(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court regarding proper authorisation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application did not comply with the Uniform Rules of Court, specifically Rule 6(1) and 7(1), as there was no resolution from the first applicant authorising the institution of proceedings, nor was there evidence that the second and first applicants authorised the third applicant to act on their behalf. Consequently, the applicants lacked locus standi, and the application was procedurally defective.
Court Disposition
Application struck off the roll with costs.
Orders
- The point in limine is upheld.
- The application is struck off the roll with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 9002/2015
DATE: 23/11/2015
In the matter between:
CONSOLIDATED WORKERS UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA 1ST APPLICANT
CHARLES SHIBAMBO
2ND APPLICANT
LUCKY VILAKAZI
3RD APPLICANT
And
THOMAS MASILELA RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
SEMENYA AJ
1. This application was brought and argued before me by the 3rd Applicant who indicated that he does not possess any legal qualifications. He further stated that he is representing the other
Applicants as he has been appointed General Secretary of the first Applicant.
2. Respondent raised a point in limine in which he raises the Applicants’ lack of locus standi. Although not specifically stated, in can be inferred from both the founding and answering affidavit that the 1st respondent is not a natural person.
3. The application evidently does not comply with the requirements laid down in Rule 6(1) and 7 (1) of The Uniform Rules of Court for want of a resolution by 1st Applicant to institute proceedings and that the proceedings be instituted at its instance. It also does not appear that 1st and 2nd Applicants authorised the 3rd Applicant to act on their behalf.
4. In the premises the following order is made;
4.1 The point in limine is upheld; 4.2 The application is struck off the roll with costs.
_________________________
M V SEMENYA
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)