Matjeke v Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (J1330/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 158 (3 May 2018)
- Citation
- [2018] ZALCJHB 158
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Steenkamp
- Case number
- J1330/16
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Steenkamp
- Case number
- J1330/16
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The applicant failed to prove that the respondents acted wilfully and in bad faith in not complying with the court order. The respondents demonstrated that arrangements for reinstatement were made and confirmed in court. In the absence of evidence of deliberate non-compliance, the requirements for contempt of court were not met. The application was accordingly dismissed.
Court disposition
Application for contempt of court dismissed.
Orders
- The application for contempt of court is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Joel Lesego Matjeke
Applicant Counsel: Ms S Taylor-BraviFidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Mr C CraffordRodney Joubert
Respondent Counsel: Mr C Crafford03
Procedural history
Posture
Contempt Application / Application for Contempt Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondents wilfully and in bad faith failed to comply with a court order making a CCMA settlement agreement an order of court.
- 02
Whether the applicant established contempt of court against the respondents.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant alleged that the respondents failed to comply with the court order which made the CCMA settlement agreement an order of court. He claimed that Fidelity Security Services and Rodney Joubert did not reinstate him or arrange the required meeting to address his grievances, thus constituting contempt of court.
- Respondent
- The respondents, represented by Mr Crafford, argued that Fidelity had undertaken to reinstate the applicant and that arrangements were made for him to report for duty at 08:00 on Monday, 19 February 2018. They denied any wilful or mala fide non-compliance with the court order.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA)
Contempt of court requires proof of wilful and mala fide non-compliance with a court order.
- 02
Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA)
A party seeking contempt must establish non-compliance beyond reasonable doubt.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The applicant failed to prove that the respondents acted wilfully and in bad faith in not complying with the court order. The respondents demonstrated that arrangements for reinstatement were made and confirmed in court. In the absence of evidence of deliberate non-compliance, the requirements for contempt of court were not met. The application was accordingly dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted the importance of legal representation for unrepresented litigants and commended the SASLAW pro bono clinic for assisting the applicant.
- The court encouraged parties to resolve disputes amicably and confirmed that compliance with settlement agreements is essential for labour relations.
Court disposition
Application for contempt of court dismissed.
- The application for contempt of court is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Judgment
Not reportable
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Case no: J1330/16
In the matter between:
JOEL
LESEGO MATJEKE Applicant and
FIDELITY SECURITY SERVICES (PTY) LTD First Respondent
RODNEY
JOUBERT Second Respondent
Heard: 16 February 2018
Delivered: 16 February 2018
Edited: 3 May 2018
STEENKAMP J
Introduction
[1] On 16 February 2018, I dismissed an application to hold the second respondent, Rodney Joubert, in contempt of Court.
[2] The contempt application arose from the alleged failure of the respondents to comply with an order of this Court making a settlement
agreement reached at the CCMA an order of Court. In terms of that order, Fidelity had agreed to set up a meeting with the applicant, Mr Matjeke, to discuss any grievances he had; and agreed to reinstate him.
[3] When I dismissed the application on 16 February 2018, I provided brief reasons ex tempore. The applicant has now requested full reasons for the order. These are the reasons.
[4] When the matter was called, I asked an attorney from the SASLAW pro bono clinic, Ms S Taylor-Bravi, to assist the applicant, who was unrepresented. The respondents were represented by an attorney, Mr C Crafford.
[5] I stood the matter down for the parties to have a further discussion. When the matter was called after the adjournment, Ms Taylor-Bravi
informed the Court that Fidelity had undertaken to reinstate the applicant; and that he had to report for duty at 08:00 on Monday 19 February 2018. Mr Crafford confirmed those instructions from his client, Fidelity.
[6] In those circumstances, I ruled that the applicant had not shown wilful and mala fide non-compliance by the respondents.
[7] The application was dismissed.
_______
Steenkamp J
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
APPEARANCES APPLICANT: Ms C Taylor-Bravi (attorney, SASLAW pro bono clinic). RESPONDENTS: Mr C Crafford (attorney).
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.