Khosa v Rustenburg Platinum Mines (Pty) Ltd (J970/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 264 (20 May 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZALCJHB 264
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- M T M Phehane
- Case number
- J970/22
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- M T M Phehane
- Case number
- J970/22
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court finds that the applicant has failed to comply with the procedural requirements for obtaining a default judgment, specifically by not filing a service affidavit demonstrating service of the application and the relevant annexure on the respondent. Furthermore, the annexure forming the basis of the applicant's claim is missing from the pleadings. The applicant is granted an opportunity to rectify these deficiencies by filing the necessary documents and affidavits within five days. Failure to do so will result in the automatic striking out of the statement of claim.
Court disposition
Application postponed pending compliance; directions issued for filing of documents and affidavits.
Orders
- The plaintiff is to file Annexure 'B' of the mutual separation agreement within 5 days of this order.
- The plaintiff is to file a service affidavit demonstrating service of Annexure 'B' to the mutual separation agreement and service of the default judgment application on the defendant.
- If Annexure 'B' is not filed as ordered, the statement of claim will be automatically struck out.
02
Material facts
Parties
Musongeya Phineas Khosa
ApplicantRustenburg Platinum Mines (Pty) Ltd
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment in Chambers
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the plaintiff has complied with the procedural requirements for a default judgment application.
- 02
Whether annexure 'B' to the mutual separation agreement, forming the basis of the plaintiff's case, has been properly placed before the Court.
- 03
Whether service of the default judgment application and annexure 'B' has been effected on the defendant.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant seeks rectification of a mutual separation agreement with the respondent, relying on annexure 'B' as the basis for his claim. He contends that the agreement does not reflect the true intention of the parties and requests the Court to rectify it accordingly.
- Respondent
- The respondent has not filed any opposing papers or appeared, as this is a default judgment application. The Court notes the absence of proof of service on the respondent and the missing annexure 'B', which undermines the applicant's case.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 21(1) of the Rules Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings of the Labour Court published under GN 4775a of GG 50608 of 3 May 2024.
Service of a default judgment application must be effected on the defendant and filed with the Registrar.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court finds that the applicant has failed to comply with the procedural requirements for obtaining a default judgment, specifically by not filing a service affidavit demonstrating service of the application and the relevant annexure on the respondent. Furthermore, the annexure forming the basis of the applicant's claim is missing from the pleadings. The applicant is granted an opportunity to rectify these deficiencies by filing the necessary documents and affidavits within five days. Failure to do so will result in the automatic striking out of the statement of claim.
Obiter and limits
- The applicant is legally represented, and it is concerning that such a fundamental document was omitted from the pleadings.
- Proper service and filing of documents are essential to the administration of justice and the fair adjudication of claims.
Court disposition
Application postponed pending compliance; directions issued for filing of documents and affidavits.
- The plaintiff is to file Annexure 'B' of the mutual separation agreement within 5 days of this order.
- The plaintiff is to file a service affidavit demonstrating service of Annexure 'B' to the mutual separation agreement and service of the default judgment application on the defendant.
- If Annexure 'B' is not filed as ordered, the statement of claim will be automatically struck out.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Judgment
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: J970/22
In the matter between:
MUSONGEYA
PHINEAS KHOSA
Applicant/Plaintiff
and
RUSTENBURG
PLATINUM MINES
(PTY) LTD Respondent/Defendant
Decided: In Chambers
Delivered: 20 May 2025 (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 20 May 2025.)
JUDGMENT
PHEHANE, J
[1] This is a default judgment application in which the plaintiff seeks to rectify a mutual separation agreement concluded between him and his erstwhile employer, the defendant.
[2] Several problems arise with this matter. Firstly, the matter was set down for 21 August 2024 for the hearing of a default judgment
application. A notice of set down issued by this Court is dated 3 July 2024. It is unclear from the Court file what transpired on that date.
[3] The matter now serves before me for the determination of the default judgment application in chambers.
[4] The plaintiff has not filed a service affidavit demonstrating service of the default judgment application on the defendant. Rule 21(1) of the Rules of this Court[1] provide that the service of a default judgment application must be served on the defendant and filed with the Registrar.
[5] The plaintiff’s case for rectification is based on an annexure described as annexure “B” to the mutual separation
agreement.[2] This annexure is not attached to the statement of claim. The plaintiff is legally represented, and it is unclear why, when the pleadings were indexed and paginated, it was not realised that a document that forms the basis of the plaintiff’s case is not attached to the pleadings.
[6] In the premises, the plaintiff is afforded the opportunity to place annexure “B” before this Court and is to file a service affidavit indicating service of annexure “B” to the mutual separation agreement on the defendant, as well as a service affidavit demonstrating service of the default judgment application on the defendant.
[7] In view of the afore-going, the following order is made:
Order:
1. The plaintiff is to file Annexure “B” of the mutual separation agreement within 5 days of this order.
2. The plaintiff is to file a service affidavit demonstrating service of Annexure “B” to the mutual separation agreement and service of the default judgment application on the defendant.
3. In the event that Annexure “B” to the mutual separation agreement is not filed as ordered in order 1 above, the statement of claim will be automatically struck out.
M. T. M. Phehane
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
[1] Rules Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings of the Labour Court published under GN 4775a of GG 50608 of 3 May 2024.
[2] See: paragraphs 9.1 to 9.4 of the statement of claim on p 8.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.