Maanaso and Another v Techniflex CC and Another (J2501/15) [2019] ZALCJHB 50 (19 March 2019)

Maanaso and Another v Techniflex CC and Another (J2501/15) [2019] ZALCJHB 50 (19 March 2019)

The court found that the respondents had not complied with the reinstatement portion of the court order dated 8 September 2015. Despite being aware of the order and the applicants' tender of services, the respondents took no steps to reinstate the applicants and instead contested the contempt proceedings. The court held that this conduct demonstrated wilfulness and mala fides beyond reasonable doubt. The respondents were therefore found to be in contempt of court and ordered to reinstate the applicants and pay a fine.

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 50
Parties
Applicant: Andrew Sello Maanaso; Applicant: Thokozani Emmanuel Zulu; Respondent: Techniflex CC; Respondent: Beatrice Dorothy Tonkin
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2019
Case Number
J2501/15
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Judgment
Outcome
Respondents found in wilful contempt of court for failing to reinstate applicants as ordered.
Judges
Raphulu L
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Reinstatement, Ccma Award Enforcement, Wilful Non Compliance
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Reinstatement Ccma Award Enforcement Wilful Non Compliance

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

Parties

Andrew Sello Maanaso

Applicant

Thokozani Emmanuel Zulu

Applicant

Techniflex CC

Respondent

Beatrice Dorothy Tonkin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are in contempt of the Labour Court order dated 8 September 2015.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents wilfully and in bad faith failed to reinstate the applicants as ordered.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents complied with the compensation portion of the order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents had not complied with the reinstatement portion of the court order dated 8 September 2015. Despite being aware of the order and the applicants' tender of services, the respondents took no steps to reinstate the applicants and instead contested the contempt proceedings. The court held that this conduct demonstrated wilfulness and mala fides beyond reasonable doubt. The respondents were therefore found to be in contempt of court and ordered to reinstate the applicants and pay a fine.

Court Disposition

Respondents found in wilful contempt of court for failing to reinstate applicants as ordered.

Orders

  • The respondents are held to be in wilful contempt of the court order dated 8 September 2015.
  • The respondents are to reinstate the applicants within 15 days of the date of this order.