Kunene and Another v Lexus Security and Another (J1087/2022) [2025] ZALCJHB 82 (26 February 2025)

Kunene and Another v Lexus Security and Another (J1087/2022) [2025] ZALCJHB 82 (26 February 2025)

The Applicants failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Respondent was in wilful and mala fide disobedience of the certified settlement agreement. The evidence showed that the Respondent was willing to reinstate the Applicants, but the Applicants refused to sign necessary documents and did not return to work. The Respondent made reasonable efforts to facilitate reinstatement, including sending correspondence and initiating disciplinary proceedings for abscondment. Mere non-compliance with the settlement agreement does not constitute contempt of court; there must be contumacious disrespect for judicial authority, which was not established on the facts. The application for...

Citation
[2025] ZALCJHB 82
Parties
Applicant: Nomagugu Kunene; Applicant: Nompilo Mncube; Respondent: Lexus Security; Respondent: Jaco van Wyk
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 February 2025
Case Number
J1087/2022
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Hearing of Oral Evidence
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Settlement Agreement, Reinstatement, Unfair Dismissal, Jurisdiction of Labour Court
Labour Law Contempt of Court Settlement Agreement Reinstatement Unfair Dismissal Jurisdiction of Labour Court

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nomagugu Kunene

Applicant

Nompilo Mncube

Applicant

Lexus Security

Respondent

Jaco van Wyk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Hearing of Oral Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent failed to reinstate the Applicants as per the settlement agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to reinstate the Applicants amounts to contempt of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants returned to work on 20 June 2022.

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicants failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Respondent was in wilful and mala fide disobedience of the certified settlement agreement. The evidence showed that the Respondent was willing to reinstate the Applicants, but the Applicants refused to sign necessary documents and did not return to work. The Respondent made reasonable efforts to facilitate reinstatement, including sending correspondence and initiating disciplinary proceedings for abscondment. Mere non-compliance with the settlement agreement does not constitute contempt of court; there must be contumacious disrespect for judicial authority, which was not established on the facts. The application for...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to cost.