Du Toit v Erudite Projects (Pty) Ltd (J 539/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 74 (2 June 2021)

Du Toit v Erudite Projects (Pty) Ltd (J 539/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 74 (2 June 2021)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying urgent relief. The urgency was based primarily on alleged financial hardship, which, according to established principles, does not in itself constitute sufficient grounds for urgency. The applicant did not adequately set out why substantial redress could not be afforded at a later hearing. The application was therefore struck off the roll for want of urgency. Regarding costs, the court exercised its discretion and, guided by fairness and the interests of justice, made no order as to costs.

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 74
Parties
Applicant: Johannes Stephanus Du Toit; Respondent: Erudite Projects (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 June 2021
Case Number
J 539/21
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Off Roll for Want of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for want of urgency; no order as to costs.
Judges
Mahosi
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Precautionary Suspension, Salary Non Payment, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgent Interdict Precautionary Suspension Salary Non Payment 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Stephanus Du Toit

Applicant

Erudite Projects (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike Off Roll for Want of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application should be heard as urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying urgent relief.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to payment of salary and restoration of access pending disciplinary proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying urgent relief. The urgency was based primarily on alleged financial hardship, which, according to established principles, does not in itself constitute sufficient grounds for urgency. The applicant did not adequately set out why substantial redress could not be afforded at a later hearing. The application was therefore struck off the roll for want of urgency. Regarding costs, the court exercised its discretion and, guided by fairness and the interests of justice, made no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for want of urgency; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll for want of urgency.
  • There is no order as to costs.