Johannes v South East Node (Pty) Ltd (J 2131/10, J 2132/10, J 2133/10) [2011] ZALCJHB 4 (2 February 2011)

Johannes v South East Node (Pty) Ltd (J 2131/10, J 2132/10, J 2133/10) [2011] ZALCJHB 4 (2 February 2011)

The court held that the applicant's supplementary affidavit was filed without leave and amounted to an amendment of the cause of action, which is not permissible without a formal application. No explanation was provided for the change in the cause of action, and the affidavit was not justified for admission. The court found no merit in the applicant's argument that the attorneys needed to be joined as a party before a cost order could be made, relying on established authority. The respondent's opposing affidavit was not considered late in the circumstances, and no condonation was required. The tender document served directly on the respondent was improper but did not constitute an...

Citation
[2011] ZALCJHB 4
Parties
Applicant: Dicks Christopher Johannes; Respondent: South East Node (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 February 2011
Case Number
J 2131/10, J 2132/10, J 2133/10
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Strike Out Supplementary Affidavit and for Costs
Outcome
The applicant's supplementary affidavit is struck out. The applicant's attorneys are ordered to pay the costs of the application on an attorney own client scale.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Supplementary Affidavit, Costs Order, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Irregular Proceedings
Labour Law Civil Procedure Supplementary Affidavit Costs Order Basic Conditions of Employment Act Irregular Proceedings

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dicks Christopher Johannes

Applicant

South East Node (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Strike Out Supplementary Affidavit and for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's supplementary affidavit should be admitted into the record.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's attorneys should be ordered to pay costs on an attorney own client scale.
  3. 3 Whether the tender document served directly on the respondent constituted an irregular proceeding.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's supplementary affidavit was filed without leave and amounted to an amendment of the cause of action, which is not permissible without a formal application. No explanation was provided for the change in the cause of action, and the affidavit was not justified for admission. The court found no merit in the applicant's argument that the attorneys needed to be joined as a party before a cost order could be made, relying on established authority. The respondent's opposing affidavit was not considered late in the circumstances, and no condonation was required. The tender document served directly on the respondent was improper but did not constitute an...

Court Disposition

The applicant's supplementary affidavit is struck out. The applicant's attorneys are ordered to pay the costs of the application on an attorney own client scale.

Orders

  • The applicant's supplementary affidavit filed on 21 June 2010 is struck out.
  • The applicant's attorneys, Jansen Incorporated, must pay the costs of this application on an attorney own client scale.