Golimpi v Unitrade 117 CC t/a Stop Discount (996/2010) [2011] ZAECMHC 13 (23 June 2011)

Golimpi v Unitrade 117 CC t/a Stop Discount (996/2010) [2011] ZAECMHC 13 (23 June 2011)

The respondent failed to comply timeously with its statutory obligation to complete and furnish the unemployment insurance forms to the applicant. The respondent only notified the applicant of the forms' readiness after litigation was instituted, and did not tender costs at any stage. The respondent's argument that the applicant should have collected the forms without notification was rejected as unreasonable and lacking legal basis. The court found that the respondent's conduct warranted a punitive costs order to mark its displeasure, following the stern approach adopted in similar cases. The respondent was ordered to pay all the applicant's costs on the attorney-and-client scale.

Citation
[2011] ZAECMHC 13
Parties
Applicant: Thembela Tamara Golimpi; Respondent: Unitrade 117 CC t/a Stop Discount
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 June 2011
Case Number
996/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Determination After Relief Became Moot
Outcome
Application for relief became moot due to respondent's belated compliance; costs awarded to applicant on attorney-and-client scale.
Judges
M D Hinxa
Legal Topics
Unemployment Insurance Act, Statutory Obligation of Employer, Costs Award, Attorney and Client Scale
Labour Law Unemployment Insurance Act Statutory Obligation of Employer Costs Award Attorney and Client Scale

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thembela Tamara Golimpi

Applicant

Unitrade 117 CC t/a Stop Discount

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Determination After Relief Became Moot

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent complied timeously with its statutory obligation to complete and furnish unemployment insurance fund application forms to the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should bear the costs of the application after belated compliance.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded on a punitive scale given the respondent's conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to comply timeously with its statutory obligation to complete and furnish the unemployment insurance forms to the applicant. The respondent only notified the applicant of the forms' readiness after litigation was instituted, and did not tender costs at any stage. The respondent's argument that the applicant should have collected the forms without notification was rejected as unreasonable and lacking legal basis. The court found that the respondent's conduct warranted a punitive costs order to mark its displeasure, following the stern approach adopted in similar cases. The respondent was ordered to pay all the applicant's costs on the attorney-and-client scale.

Court Disposition

Application for relief became moot due to respondent's belated compliance; costs awarded to applicant on attorney-and-client scale.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay all the applicant’s costs on the scale as between attorney-and-client up to and including the date of judgment.