Masete v Transnet Bargaining Council and Others (J 554/2021) [2021] ZALCJHB 153 (16 July 2021)

Masete v Transnet Bargaining Council and Others (J 554/2021) [2021] ZALCJHB 153 (16 July 2021)

The court found that the applicant failed to act with due haste upon learning of the jurisdictional ruling and the disciplinary hearing dates. The applicant waited nearly ten months after the ruling and two months after filing the review application before seeking urgent relief, without providing any explanation for the delay. The court held that any urgency claimed was self-created and not genuine, as the applicant did not approach the court at the first available opportunity. The disciplinary hearing had already commenced, and the review application was not prosecuted expeditiously. The court concluded that the application did not meet the requirements for urgency under Rule 8 and that...

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 153
Parties
Applicant: Emmanuel Mamaru Masete; Respondent: Transnet Bargaining Council; Respondent: Transnet Engineering; Respondent: Tokiso Dispute Settlement
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 July 2021
Case Number
J 554/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Matter From Urgent Roll
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; applicant ordered to pay 20% of the second respondent's taxed costs.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Urgency in Labour Court, Self Created Urgency, Disciplinary Hearing Interdict, Review Application Delay
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgency in Labour Court Self Created Urgency Disciplinary Hearing Interdict Review Application Delay

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emmanuel Mamaru Masete

Applicant

Transnet Bargaining Council

Respondent

Transnet Engineering

Respondent

Tokiso Dispute Settlement

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike Matter From Urgent Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's urgent application to stay disciplinary proceedings is genuinely urgent and should be entertained by the Labour Court.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reasons for urgency and acted with due haste upon learning of the jurisdictional ruling and disciplinary hearing dates.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's delay in bringing the application constitutes self-created urgency, which is not entertained by the urgent court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to act with due haste upon learning of the jurisdictional ruling and the disciplinary hearing dates. The applicant waited nearly ten months after the ruling and two months after filing the review application before seeking urgent relief, without providing any explanation for the delay. The court held that any urgency claimed was self-created and not genuine, as the applicant did not approach the court at the first available opportunity. The disciplinary hearing had already commenced, and the review application was not prosecuted expeditiously. The court concluded that the application did not meet the requirements for urgency under Rule 8 and that...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; applicant ordered to pay 20% of the second respondent's taxed costs.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
  • The applicant is to pay the second respondent's costs, limited to 20% of the taxed costs.