Feuilherade and Others v Mthimkhulu (DA7/2002; DA8/2002) [2002] ZALAC 34; (2003) 24 ILJ 362 (LAC); [2003] 3 BLLR 213 (LAC) (20 December 2002)

Feuilherade and Others v Mthimkhulu (DA7/2002; DA8/2002) [2002] ZALAC 34; (2003) 24 ILJ 362 (LAC); [2003] 3 BLLR 213 (LAC) (20 December 2002)

The Labour Appeal Court held that the appellants failed to provide a credible or acceptable explanation for their default in opposing the application to make the settlement agreement an order of court. The correspondence clearly indicated that the matter would proceed in their absence if not opposed, and the failure to instruct attorneys or file an answering affidavit was reckless. The requirements for rescission under section 165 of the Labour Relations Act and rule 16A were not met, as the appellants did not show good cause. The contempt order, however, was erroneously granted, as the application was not properly argued or adjudicated, and factual disputes regarding the respondent's...

Citation
[2002] ZALAC 34
Parties
Appellant: Anthony Feuilherade; Appellant: Francois Davidtz; Appellant: Enforce Security Group (Pty) Limited; Appellant: Enforce Security Guarding (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Dumisani Mandlenkosi Mthimkhulu
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 December 2002
Case Number
DA7/2002; DA8/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment and Orders, Including Rescission and Contempt Applications
Outcome
The appeal against paragraph 1 of the order of 5 September 2001 is dismissed. The appeal against the order of 7 December 2001 succeeds to the extent that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order of 5 September 2001 are deleted. No order is made in the appeal against paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order of 5 September 2001.
Judges
E L Goldstein, R M M Zondo, D Mlambo
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreement, Rescission of Judgment, Contempt of Court, Reinstatement, Default Judgment, Good Cause Requirement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Settlement Agreement Rescission of Judgment Contempt of Court Reinstatement Default Judgment Good Cause Requirement

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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Feuilherade

Appellant

Francois Davidtz

Appellant

Enforce Security Group (Pty) Limited

Appellant

Enforce Security Guarding (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Dumisani Mandlenkosi Mthimkhulu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment and Orders, Including Rescission and Contempt Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court's order making the settlement agreement an order of court should be rescinded.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for rescission under section 165 of the Labour Relations Act and rule 16A were met.
  3. 3 Whether the contempt order against the appellants was properly granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that the appellants failed to provide a credible or acceptable explanation for their default in opposing the application to make the settlement agreement an order of court. The correspondence clearly indicated that the matter would proceed in their absence if not opposed, and the failure to instruct attorneys or file an answering affidavit was reckless. The requirements for rescission under section 165 of the Labour Relations Act and rule 16A were not met, as the appellants did not show good cause. The contempt order, however, was erroneously granted, as the application was not properly argued or adjudicated, and factual disputes regarding the respondent's...

Court Disposition

The appeal against paragraph 1 of the order of 5 September 2001 is dismissed. The appeal against the order of 7 December 2001 succeeds to the extent that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order of 5 September 2001 are deleted. No order is made in the appeal against paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order of 5 September 2001.

Orders

  • The appeal against paragraph 1 of the order of 5 September 2001 is dismissed.
  • Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order of 5 September 2001 are deleted.