Electprops 97 (Pty) Ltd t/a Manhour and Another v UCIMESHAWU obo Khosa and Others; In re: ICUMESHAWU obo Khosa and Others v Roots Butchery CC and Another (JS836/14) [2018] ZALCJHB 297 (20 September 2018)

Electprops 97 (Pty) Ltd t/a Manhour and Another v UCIMESHAWU obo Khosa and Others; In re: ICUMESHAWU obo Khosa and Others v Roots Butchery CC and Another (JS836/14) [2018] ZALCJHB 297 (20 September 2018)

The court found that the applicants did not receive the statement of claim or the application for default judgment, as the documents were sent to incorrect or alternative facsimile numbers and no proof of service was provided. The facsimile transmission report was rebutted by evidence of non-receipt. The court was unaware of the applicants' intention to oppose the relief sought. As a result, the default judgment was granted erroneously in the absence of the applicants. The requirements for rescission under section 165(a) of the Labour Relations Act and Rule 16A(1)(a)(i) were satisfied, and the judgment was rescinded and set aside.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 297
Parties
Applicant: Electprops 97 (Pty) Ltd t/a Manhour; Applicant: Roots Butchery Protea Gardens; Respondent: UCIMESHAWU obo Robert Khosa and 13 Others
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 September 2018
Case Number
JS836/14
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission granted; default judgment rescinded and set aside.
Judges
P. Sedile
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Service of Process, Section 165 Lra, Rule 16a Labour Court
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Service of Process Section 165 Lra Rule 16a Labour Court

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Electprops 97 (Pty) Ltd t/a Manhour

Applicant

Roots Butchery Protea Gardens

Applicant

UCIMESHAWU obo Robert Khosa and 13 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment granted on 23 August 2016 was erroneously sought or granted in the absence of the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants received proper notification of the application and notice of set down.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for rescission under section 165(a) of the Labour Relations Act and Rule 16A(1)(a)(i) were met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants did not receive the statement of claim or the application for default judgment, as the documents were sent to incorrect or alternative facsimile numbers and no proof of service was provided. The facsimile transmission report was rebutted by evidence of non-receipt. The court was unaware of the applicants' intention to oppose the relief sought. As a result, the default judgment was granted erroneously in the absence of the applicants. The requirements for rescission under section 165(a) of the Labour Relations Act and Rule 16A(1)(a)(i) were satisfied, and the judgment was rescinded and set aside.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission granted; default judgment rescinded and set aside.

Orders

  • The judgment of Steenkamp J dated 23 August 2016 is rescinded and set aside.
  • There is no order as to costs.