Enforce Guarding (Pty) Ltd v NASUWU and Others (D573/2002) [2002] ZALC 60; [2003] 1 BLLR 9 (LC) (27 August 2002)

Enforce Guarding (Pty) Ltd v NASUWU and Others (D573/2002) [2002] ZALC 60; [2003] 1 BLLR 9 (LC) (27 August 2002)

The court found that sufficient notice was given to the respondents, as written notification was provided 48 hours before the application was launched and the urgency of the matter justified the procedure adopted. The applicant's actions were reasonable given the security implications for third parties. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] ZALC 60
Parties
Applicant: Enforce Guarding (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: NASUWU; Respondent: Others
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 August 2002
Case Number
D573/2002
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Confirmation of Rule Nisi
Outcome
Rule nisi confirmed. Costs awarded against the first respondent on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
Pillay
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Notice Requirements, Attorney Client Costs, Strike Action, Recognition Agreement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgent Interdict Notice Requirements Attorney Client Costs Strike Action Recognition Agreement

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Enforce Guarding (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

NASUWU

Respondent

Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Confirmation of Rule Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sufficient notice was given to the respondents in terms of section 68(2) of the Labour Relations Act before the urgent application was launched.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent should be ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale due to their conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that sufficient notice was given to the respondents, as written notification was provided 48 hours before the application was launched and the urgency of the matter justified the procedure adopted. The applicant's actions were reasonable given the security implications for third parties. The respondents' conduct was found to be deliberate and negligent, as they failed to withdraw the strike notice after being informed that the issue had been resolved and insisted unreasonably on a formal agreement. Their actions were disruptive to the relationship of trust and warranted the confirmation of the rule nisi and an order for costs on an attorney and client scale against the...

Court Disposition

Rule nisi confirmed. Costs awarded against the first respondent on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The rule nisi is confirmed.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs on an attorney and client scale.