Independent Police Investigative Directorate v PSA obo Mabasa and Others In Re: PSA obo Mabasa and Others v Independent Police Investigative Directorate and Others (J1424/18) [2021] ZALCJHB 187 (2 August 2021)

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

Not Reportable

Case No: J 1424/18

In the matter between:

INDEPENDENT POLICE INVESTIGATIVE Applicant

DIRECTORATE

and

PSA obo RAYMOND MABASA & OTHERS

First Respondent

In Re:

PSA obo RAYMOND MABASA & OTHERS Applicant

INDEPENDENT POLICE INVESTIGATIVE

First Respondent

MINISTER OF POLICE

Second Respondent

MINISTER OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND

ADMINISTRATION Third Respondent

MINISTER OF FINANCE

Fourth Respondent

Date heard : 22 July 2021 decided on the Papers.

Date delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by email, publication on the Labour Court website and release to SAFLII. The date and time for handing-down is deemed to be 10h00 on 02 August 2021.

JUDGMENT

BALOYI, AJ

Introduction

[1] On 16 April 2021 the applicant filed this application seeking the following order:

“1. That the above Honourable Court should grant an order extending the period within which the applicant is to comply with an order of the court dated 20 August 2019;

2. That such period be extended until 30 July 2021;

3. That the Respondents be ordered to pay the costs of this application in the event of opposition;

4. That any further and/or alternative relief as the court deem meet be granted”

[2] The main order that is fundamentally a subject of matter this application made on 07 August 2018 is not attached to the application. According to the applicant as stated in its papers this omission was deliberate. The applicant had instead placed focus on the order made on 20 August 2019 which read as follows:

“1. The first respondent is hereby compelled to comply with court order dated 07 August 2018 within 3 months of this other.

2. The first respondent file on 20th of each month, a monthly update on the progress made to comply with the court order dated 07 August 2018.

3. The first respondent’s explanatory affidavit is condoned.

4. The first respondent pays costs of this application”

[3] The reading of the above order is self-explanatory in that the applicant is compelled to comply with the order of 07 August 2018. Failure to comply as it is the case now, is nothing but contempt. In its own words the applicant has not fully complied. The applicant only came to Court approximately after 18 months of expiry of the three months’ period set out in the order of 20 August 2019 to seek an extension of the period of compliance. It bears mention that the order of 20 August 2019 was made consequent to the application to compel the applicant to comply with the order of 07 August 2018. There is no explanation for the delay.

[4] It appears that this application came as a measure of seeking the assistance of the Court to remain non-compliant with its orders. The application is extremely ill conceived. The applicant alleged having secured agreements for indulgence, for reasons only known to the applicant are not made part of this application. In this regard, I find no reason to conclude that case for the relief sought is made. This Court is also called upon to deal with the issue of costs in the event opposition. Since there is none there remains no need to consider the issue.

[5] I therefore, make the following order:

Order

1. The application is dismissed.

2. There is no order as to costs.

M Baloyi

Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa