IMATU v Ekhuruleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (J597/03) [2003] ZALC 70 (6 June 2003)

IMATU v Ekhuruleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (J597/03) [2003] ZALC 70 (6 June 2003)

The court found that both parties contributed to the delay and urgency of the dispute. The applicant failed to respond promptly to communications and did not take steps to reconvene the placement committee, while the municipality's conduct was not sufficiently obstructive to warrant a costs order. The settlement agreement merely affirmed the collective agreement, and making a costs order would disturb the ongoing working relationship between the union and the municipality. Therefore, the applicant is ordered to pay only the costs of the day, including the costs of the first respondent's supplementary affidavit.

Citation
[2003] ZALC 70
Parties
Applicant: IMATU; Respondent: Ekhuruleni Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: S A Municipal Workers Union
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 June 2003
Case Number
J597/03
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination After Settlement of Urgent Application
Outcome
Costs order granted against the applicant for the costs of the day, including the first respondent's supplementary affidavit.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Collective Agreement Enforcement, Costs Award, Urgent Interdict, Placement Committee Dispute
Labour Law Civil Procedure Collective Agreement Enforcement Costs Award Urgent Interdict Placement Committee Dispute

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IMATU

Applicant

Ekhuruleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

S A Municipal Workers Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination After Settlement of Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a costs order following settlement of the urgent application.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the parties justified a deviation from the usual rule regarding costs in labour disputes.
  3. 3 Whether the municipality complied with the collective agreement in the appointment process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parties contributed to the delay and urgency of the dispute. The applicant failed to respond promptly to communications and did not take steps to reconvene the placement committee, while the municipality's conduct was not sufficiently obstructive to warrant a costs order. The settlement agreement merely affirmed the collective agreement, and making a costs order would disturb the ongoing working relationship between the union and the municipality. Therefore, the applicant is ordered to pay only the costs of the day, including the costs of the first respondent's supplementary affidavit.

Court Disposition

Costs order granted against the applicant for the costs of the day, including the first respondent's supplementary affidavit.

Orders

  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of today, including the costs of the first respondent's supplementary affidavit.