Malola v Coca Cola Fortune (PTY) Ltd and Another (J 1174/2020) [2022] ZALCJHB 259 (16 September 2022)

Malola v Coca Cola Fortune (PTY) Ltd and Another (J 1174/2020) [2022] ZALCJHB 259 (16 September 2022)

The court found that personal service of the rule nisi was required prior to the return date, and since this was not effected, the application could not proceed. The respondents were advised that the matter would not proceed, yet they filed a substantial answering affidavit. The court held that, in accordance with section 162 of the LRA and Constitutional Court guidance, the requirements of law and fairness are best satisfied by each party bearing its own costs, so as not to discourage individual litigants from accessing the Labour Court.

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 259
Parties
Applicant: MOHLATLEGO DAVID MALOLA; Respondent: COCA COLA FORTUNE (PTY) LTD; Respondent: V RATSHEFOLA
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 2022
Case Number
J 1174/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Discharge of Rule Nisi
Outcome
No order as to costs is made in respect of the proceedings on 22 July 2022.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Costs in Labour Court, Unfair Dismissal, Contempt of Court, Arbitration Award Enforcement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Costs in Labour Court Unfair Dismissal Contempt of Court Arbitration Award Enforcement

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MOHLATLEGO DAVID MALOLA

Applicant

COCA COLA FORTUNE (PTY) LTD

Respondent

V RATSHEFOLA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Discharge of Rule Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded following the discharge of the rule nisi in contempt proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of law and fairness justify a costs order against either party.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' filing of an answering affidavit was necessary given the lack of personal service.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that personal service of the rule nisi was required prior to the return date, and since this was not effected, the application could not proceed. The respondents were advised that the matter would not proceed, yet they filed a substantial answering affidavit. The court held that, in accordance with section 162 of the LRA and Constitutional Court guidance, the requirements of law and fairness are best satisfied by each party bearing its own costs, so as not to discourage individual litigants from accessing the Labour Court.

Court Disposition

No order as to costs is made in respect of the proceedings on 22 July 2022.

Orders

  • In respect of the proceedings on 22 July 2022, there is no order as to costs.