Matseba v Liberty Group Limited (J2920/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 572; (2017) 38 ILJ 1155 (LC) (14 December 2016)

Matseba v Liberty Group Limited (J2920/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 572; (2017) 38 ILJ 1155 (LC) (14 December 2016)

The court held that section 18 of the Superior Courts Act does not entitle an unsuccessful applicant for interim relief to obtain the same relief merely by lodging an application for leave to appeal. The dismissal of the previous application for an interdict is not an order capable of execution or suspension; it simply restores the status quo, which in this case is Liberty Group Limited proceeding with a new disciplinary hearing. The statutory suspension mechanism applies only to orders granting positive relief, not to dismissals. The urgency of the application was self-created, as the applicant delayed bringing the matter despite knowing the hearing would proceed. The application was...

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 572
Parties
Applicant: Tshepo Joseph Matseba; Respondent: Liberty Group Limited
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2016
Case Number
J2920/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Prior to Disciplinary Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Interdictory Relief, Suspension of Order Pending Appeal, Disciplinary Hearing, Superior Courts Act Section 18
Labour Law Civil Procedure Interdictory Relief Suspension of Order Pending Appeal Disciplinary Hearing Superior Courts Act Section 18

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tshepo Joseph Matseba

Applicant

Liberty Group Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Prior to Disciplinary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an earlier interdict suspends the operation and execution of that order.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interdict the respondent from proceeding with a disciplinary hearing pending the outcome of the leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether urgency in bringing the application was self-created.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 18 of the Superior Courts Act does not entitle an unsuccessful applicant for interim relief to obtain the same relief merely by lodging an application for leave to appeal. The dismissal of the previous application for an interdict is not an order capable of execution or suspension; it simply restores the status quo, which in this case is Liberty Group Limited proceeding with a new disciplinary hearing. The statutory suspension mechanism applies only to orders granting positive relief, not to dismissals. The urgency of the application was self-created, as the applicant delayed bringing the matter despite knowing the hearing would proceed. The application was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.