Kuadio v Amapogo Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (J1341/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 438 (29 November 2016)

Kuadio v Amapogo Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (J1341/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 438 (29 November 2016)

The court found that the respondents failed to comply with a certified arbitration award issued by the CCMA, and their purported rescission application was both procedurally defective and not properly before the CCMA. The respondents' attempt to seek rescission directly from the Labour Court was irregular, and their application before the CCMA was invalid due to defects in commissioning and failure to indicate when they became aware of the award. The respondents were legally represented and had ample opportunity to correct these defects but failed to do so. As a result, the court concluded that the respondents were in contempt for failing to comply with the award, and the explanation for...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 438
Parties
Applicant: Ettienne Kuadio; Respondent: Amapogo Security Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Frik van Heerden
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2016
Case Number
J1341/16
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Final Determination
Outcome
The respondents were found to be in contempt of court for failing to comply with the certified arbitration award. A fine was imposed on the second respondent, suspended for two years, and the first respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Default Award, Rescission Application, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Default Award Rescission Application Costs Order

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ettienne Kuadio

Applicant

Amapogo Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Frik van Heerden

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are in contempt of court for failing to comply with a certified arbitration award.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' rescission application constitutes a valid defence to contempt.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents followed proper procedure in seeking rescission of the default award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents failed to comply with a certified arbitration award issued by the CCMA, and their purported rescission application was both procedurally defective and not properly before the CCMA. The respondents' attempt to seek rescission directly from the Labour Court was irregular, and their application before the CCMA was invalid due to defects in commissioning and failure to indicate when they became aware of the award. The respondents were legally represented and had ample opportunity to correct these defects but failed to do so. As a result, the court concluded that the respondents were in contempt for failing to comply with the award, and the explanation for...

Court Disposition

The respondents were found to be in contempt of court for failing to comply with the certified arbitration award. A fine was imposed on the second respondent, suspended for two years, and the first respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are found to be in contempt of court for failure to comply with the award issued under case number GAEK5332-15 as certified in terms of section 143 of the Labour Relations Act.
  • The second respondent, as director of the first respondent, is ordered to pay a fine of R100,000.00 as a result of the contempt finding.