Gombo Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Securities Combined Civil Workers Union and Others (J3498/00) [2001] ZALC 180 (18 October 2001)

Gombo Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Securities Combined Civil Workers Union and Others (J3498/00) [2001] ZALC 180 (18 October 2001)

The court found that the compensation order in paragraph 3 was erroneously granted because there was no application to quantify the award and essential information was lacking. The applicant had no notice that such relief was being sought. As to paragraphs 1 and 2, the applicant failed to show it was not in wilful default, having received relevant documents but failing to act. The applicant's explanations were inadequate and amounted to gross negligence. The applicant also failed to demonstrate a bona fide defence, as its claims regarding the dismissals were unsubstantiated and contradicted by the facts. Accordingly, the application to rescind paragraphs 1 and 2 was dismissed, but...

Citation
[2001] ZALC 180
Parties
Applicant: Gombo Security Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Securities Combined Civil Workers Union and 36 Others
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 October 2001
Case Number
J3498/00
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application to rescind paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order is dismissed; paragraph 3 of the order is rescinded; no order as to costs.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Arbitration Award Enforcement, Wilful Default, Bona Fide Defence, Quantification of Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Arbitration Award Enforcement Wilful Default Bona Fide Defence Quantification of Award

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gombo Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Securities Combined Civil Workers Union and 36 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment granted on 21 November 2000 should be rescinded.
  2. 2 Whether the compensation order in paragraph 3 was erroneously granted.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was in wilful default and has a bona fide defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the compensation order in paragraph 3 was erroneously granted because there was no application to quantify the award and essential information was lacking. The applicant had no notice that such relief was being sought. As to paragraphs 1 and 2, the applicant failed to show it was not in wilful default, having received relevant documents but failing to act. The applicant's explanations were inadequate and amounted to gross negligence. The applicant also failed to demonstrate a bona fide defence, as its claims regarding the dismissals were unsubstantiated and contradicted by the facts. Accordingly, the application to rescind paragraphs 1 and 2 was dismissed, but...

Court Disposition

Application to rescind paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order is dismissed; paragraph 3 of the order is rescinded; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Paragraph 3 of the order dated 21 November 2000 is rescinded.
  • Application to rescind paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order dated 21 November 2000 is dismissed.