Daku Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another v South African Clothing and Textile Workers Union (PS39/18) [2021] ZALCPE 9; [2021] 9 BLLR 936 (LC); (2021) 42 ILJ 2423 (LC) (17 June 2021)

Daku Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another v South African Clothing and Textile Workers Union (PS39/18) [2021] ZALCPE 9; [2021] 9 BLLR 936 (LC); (2021) 42 ILJ 2423 (LC) (17 June 2021)

The court found that the prior judgment of Lallie J, which discharged the rule nisi against SACTWU, was final and related to the same unlawful strike action for which damages are now claimed for the period 4 November 2016 to 29 November 2016. The applicants had the opportunity to present their case against SACTWU but failed to do so. The requirements for issue estoppel are met, and it is permissible and correct in law to relax the strict requirements of res judicata in these circumstances. However, the alleged involvement of SACTWU in the strike from 30 November 2016 to 5 December 2016 was not previously adjudicated and remains to be determined by the trial court. The special plea of...

Citation
[2021] ZALCPE 9
Parties
Applicant: Daku Trading (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: New Brighton Trading (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: South African Clothing and Textile Workers Union
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 June 2021
Case Number
PS39/18
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Special Pleas Before Trial
Outcome
The respondent's special plea of issue estoppel is upheld for the period 4 November 2016 to 29 November 2016; the claim for damages for the period 30 November 2016 to 5 December 2016 and the special plea of undue delay are to be determined by the trial court; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
Rawjee
Legal Topics
Unlawful Strike, Issue Estoppel, Res Judicata, Prescription, Damages Claim, Labour Relations Act
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unlawful Strike Issue Estoppel Res Judicata Prescription Damages Claim Labour Relations Act

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daku Trading (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

New Brighton Trading (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

South African Clothing and Textile Workers Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Special Pleas Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's special plea of issue estoppel bars the applicants' claim for damages for the period 4 November 2016 to 29 November 2016.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's alleged furtherance of the unlawful strike action from 30 November 2016 to 5 December 2016 gives rise to a claim for damages.
  3. 3 Whether the claim for damages is barred by undue delay in instituting proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the prior judgment of Lallie J, which discharged the rule nisi against SACTWU, was final and related to the same unlawful strike action for which damages are now claimed for the period 4 November 2016 to 29 November 2016. The applicants had the opportunity to present their case against SACTWU but failed to do so. The requirements for issue estoppel are met, and it is permissible and correct in law to relax the strict requirements of res judicata in these circumstances. However, the alleged involvement of SACTWU in the strike from 30 November 2016 to 5 December 2016 was not previously adjudicated and remains to be determined by the trial court. The special plea of...

Court Disposition

The respondent's special plea of issue estoppel is upheld for the period 4 November 2016 to 29 November 2016; the claim for damages for the period 30 November 2016 to 5 December 2016 and the special plea of undue delay are to be determined by the trial court; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The special plea of issue estoppel raised by the respondent is upheld for the period 5 November 2016 to 29 November 2016.
  • SACTWU's alleged furtherance of the unlawful strike action for the period 30 November 2016 to 5 December 2016 and the claim for damages arising therefrom is to be determined by the trial court.