Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v SAMWU and Others (J 793/2010) [2011] ZALCJHB 206 (18 February 2011)

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v SAMWU and Others (J 793/2010) [2011] ZALCJHB 206 (18 February 2011)

The court declined to confirm the interim interdict as a final order because the strike and the associated unlawful conduct had ended by the return day. The relief sought was not time-bound and would have had indefinite prospective effect, which is legally inappropriate. The applicant had identified specific individuals involved in misconduct, but the necessity for a final order had dissipated with the cessation of the strike. The court found that the applicant did not require a court order to institute disciplinary action against employees for past misconduct. Costs were awarded to the applicant for the interim relief and replying affidavit, but the applicant was ordered to pay the...

Citation
[2011] ZALCJHB 206
Parties
Applicant: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: South African Municipal Workers Union; Respondent: M F Ndlela & 10,252 Others
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 2011
Case Number
J 793/2010
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Day for Confirmation of Rule Nisi
Outcome
Rule nisi discharged; costs awarded as specified.
Judges
R Lagrange
Legal Topics
Interdict, Essential Services, Strike Misconduct, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Interdict Essential Services Strike Misconduct 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Applicant

South African Municipal Workers Union

Respondent

M F Ndlela & 10,252 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Day for Confirmation of Rule Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim interdict restraining unlawful conduct during a protected strike should be confirmed as a final order.
  2. 2 Whether the relief sought is appropriate given the strike had ended by the return day.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents were properly identified for the purposes of the interdict.

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to confirm the interim interdict as a final order because the strike and the associated unlawful conduct had ended by the return day. The relief sought was not time-bound and would have had indefinite prospective effect, which is legally inappropriate. The applicant had identified specific individuals involved in misconduct, but the necessity for a final order had dissipated with the cessation of the strike. The court found that the applicant did not require a court order to institute disciplinary action against employees for past misconduct. Costs were awarded to the applicant for the interim relief and replying affidavit, but the applicant was ordered to pay the...

Court Disposition

Rule nisi discharged; costs awarded as specified.

Orders

  • The rule nisi issued on 15 April 2010 is discharged.
  • The first respondent must pay the applicant’s costs of applying for the interim relief awarded on 15 April 2010, and the costs of preparing its replying affidavit, including the costs of two counsel.