Freshmark (Pty) Limited v Mabasa and Others (J 2636/14) [2015] ZALCJHB 29 (10 February 2015)

Freshmark (Pty) Limited v Mabasa and Others (J 2636/14) [2015] ZALCJHB 29 (10 February 2015)

The court found that the statements made by the Provincial Secretary of the union, when considered in context, did not amount to intimidation or a threat to damage the applicant’s premises as contemplated by paragraph 1.1 of the court order. The demonstration was peaceful, and the remarks expressed frustration rather than wilful or mala fide intent to breach the order. The court held that the order was sufficiently clear and unambiguous to prohibit intimidating conduct, but the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the union, through its office bearer, acted in contempt. Accordingly, the application for contempt was dismissed.

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 29
Parties
Applicant: Freshmark (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Frederick Mabasa; Respondent: South African Transport and Allied Workers Union; Respondent: TC Nkosi; Respondent: Veleminah Mokoena
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 February 2015
Case Number
J 2636/14
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Final Judgment on Contempt Application
Outcome
Application for contempt against the second respondent dismissed; costs awarded to the respondent.
Judges
AC Basson
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Interdicts, Union Liability, Strike Action, Wilful Disobedience
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Interdicts Union Liability Strike Action Wilful Disobedience

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Freshmark (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Frederick Mabasa

Respondent

South African Transport and Allied Workers Union

Respondent

TC Nkosi

Respondent

Veleminah Mokoena

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Final Judgment on Contempt Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made by the Provincial Secretary of the union constituted contempt of a court order.
  2. 2 Whether the union can be held liable for the conduct of its office bearer under the terms of the order.
  3. 3 Whether the court order was sufficiently clear and unambiguous to be enforceable against the union for the alleged conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statements made by the Provincial Secretary of the union, when considered in context, did not amount to intimidation or a threat to damage the applicant’s premises as contemplated by paragraph 1.1 of the court order. The demonstration was peaceful, and the remarks expressed frustration rather than wilful or mala fide intent to breach the order. The court held that the order was sufficiently clear and unambiguous to prohibit intimidating conduct, but the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the union, through its office bearer, acted in contempt. Accordingly, the application for contempt was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for contempt against the second respondent dismissed; costs awarded to the respondent.

Orders

  • The application for contempt against the second respondent is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application.