Gqweta v Mogale NO and Another; In Re: National Health Laboratory Services (J1665/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 269 (28 August 2018)

Gqweta v Mogale NO and Another; In Re: National Health Laboratory Services (J1665/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 269 (28 August 2018)

The court found that the applicant was justified in launching the contempt application, as the employer proceeded with disciplinary action despite a court order. The application was not frivolous or vexatious. The second respondent's persistence in seeking a costs order was unreasonable and based on irrelevant considerations, namely his own arbitration postponement and potential costs order at the CCMA. The requirements of law and fairness, as set out in section 162 of the Labour Relations Act and confirmed by Constitutional Court authority, prompted the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant and order the second respondent to pay the applicant's costs.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 269
Parties
Applicant: Lungisa Gqweta; Respondent: Ms Joyce Mogale N.O; Respondent: Mr Abie Phooko N.O; Applicant: National Health Laboratory Services
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 August 2018
Case Number
J1665/16
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Application for Costs Following Withdrawal of Contempt Application
Outcome
Application for costs by the second respondent dismissed; costs awarded in favour of the applicant.
Judges
Mahosi
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Contempt of Court, Withdrawal of Application, Requirements of Law and Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Costs Award Contempt of Court Withdrawal of Application Requirements of Law and Fairness

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lungisa Gqweta

Applicant

Ms Joyce Mogale N.O

Respondent

Mr Abie Phooko N.O

Respondent

National Health Laboratory Services

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Application for Costs Following Withdrawal of Contempt Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's contempt application was frivolous, vexatious, or incompetent and warranted a costs order against him.
  2. 2 Whether the second respondent's persistence in seeking costs was reasonable and relevant to the issues before the court.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of law and fairness justify a costs order in favour of the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was justified in launching the contempt application, as the employer proceeded with disciplinary action despite a court order. The application was not frivolous or vexatious. The second respondent's persistence in seeking a costs order was unreasonable and based on irrelevant considerations, namely his own arbitration postponement and potential costs order at the CCMA. The requirements of law and fairness, as set out in section 162 of the Labour Relations Act and confirmed by Constitutional Court authority, prompted the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant and order the second respondent to pay the applicant's costs.

Court Disposition

Application for costs by the second respondent dismissed; costs awarded in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The second respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs on the party and party scale.