Kutumela v CSG Resourcing (Pty) Ltd (JS559/24) [2025] ZALCJHB 268 (7 May 2025)

Kutumela v CSG Resourcing (Pty) Ltd (JS559/24) [2025] ZALCJHB 268 (7 May 2025)

The court found that the first defendant's condonation application for the late filing of its statement of response demonstrated good cause and was not opposed. The plaintiff was aware of the condonation application and the statement of response. Additionally, the first defendant indicated that another case involving similar facts had been referred to the court under a different case number, and requested consolidation. In light of these circumstances, the court held that the default judgment application could not succeed and dismissed it. The court condoned the first defendant's late filing and directed that an application for consolidation be brought within 30 days. Costs were reserved.

Citation
[2025] ZALCJHB 268
Parties
Plaintiff: Oupa J. Kutumela; Defendant: CSG Resourcing (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Rouche Kleynhans; Defendant: Tebogo Moalusi
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 May 2025
Case Number
JS559/24
Procedural Posture
Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment; Condonation for Late Filing; Consolidation Request
Outcome
Default judgment application dismissed; condonation granted; consolidation application to be filed; costs reserved.
Judges
M T M Phehane
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Operational Requirements, Default Judgment, Condonation of Late Filing, Case Consolidation
Labour Law Dismissal for Operational Requirements Default Judgment Condonation of Late Filing Case Consolidation

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oupa J. Kutumela

Plaintiff

CSG Resourcing (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Rouche Kleynhans

Defendant

Tebogo Moalusi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment; Condonation for Late Filing; Consolidation Request

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to default judgment for reinstatement or compensation following dismissal for operational requirements.
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant's condonation application for late filing of its statement of response should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the present case should be consolidated with another matter involving similar facts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first defendant's condonation application for the late filing of its statement of response demonstrated good cause and was not opposed. The plaintiff was aware of the condonation application and the statement of response. Additionally, the first defendant indicated that another case involving similar facts had been referred to the court under a different case number, and requested consolidation. In light of these circumstances, the court held that the default judgment application could not succeed and dismissed it. The court condoned the first defendant's late filing and directed that an application for consolidation be brought within 30 days. Costs were reserved.

Court Disposition

Default judgment application dismissed; condonation granted; consolidation application to be filed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The default judgment application is dismissed.
  • The first defendant’s condonation application for the late filing of its statement of response is condoned.