Mbokodo and Another v NEHAWU and Others (2025/094549) [2025] ZALCJHB 273 (30 June 2025)

Mbokodo and Another v NEHAWU and Others (2025/094549) [2025] ZALCJHB 273 (30 June 2025)

The application is not urgent as the applicants failed to comply with their own truncated timeframes and did not ensure all necessary papers were uploaded for adjudication. The dispute is already pending before the Mpumalanga Division of the High Court under case number 2025-088026, and the doctrine of lis pendens applies, barring the Labour Court from hearing the same matter between the same parties. The applicants' conduct amounts to forum shopping and is vexatious, especially as they approached the Labour Court after failing to obtain urgent relief in the High Court. The submission that the High Court lacks jurisdiction is rejected, as both courts have concurrent jurisdiction over...

Citation
[2025] ZALCJHB 273
Parties
Applicant: Norman Mbokodo; Applicant: Selby Mabele; Respondent: NEHAWU; Respondent: Fanie Ngwenywama; Respondent: Deketso Moselena; Respondent: Welcome Mnisi; Respondent: Gift Maseko; Respondent: Linas Mahamba; Respondent: Provincial Executive Committee; Respondent: Regional Office Bearers
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 June 2025
Case Number
2025/094549
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Urgent Application for Final Interdictory Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on a punitive scale.
Judges
M T M Phehane
Legal Topics
Lis Pendens, Urgency, Forum Shopping, Concurrent Jurisdiction
Labour Law Civil Procedure Lis Pendens Urgency Forum Shopping Concurrent Jurisdiction

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norman Mbokodo

Applicant

Selby Mabele

Applicant

NEHAWU

Respondent

Fanie Ngwenywama

Respondent

Deketso Moselena

Respondent

Welcome Mnisi

Respondent

Gift Maseko

Respondent

Linas Mahamba

Respondent

Provincial Executive Committee

Respondent

Regional Office Bearers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Urgent Application for Final Interdictory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and should be heard on an expedited basis.
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of lis pendens applies due to a pending dispute in the High Court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are engaging in forum shopping by approaching multiple courts for the same relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The application is not urgent as the applicants failed to comply with their own truncated timeframes and did not ensure all necessary papers were uploaded for adjudication. The dispute is already pending before the Mpumalanga Division of the High Court under case number 2025-088026, and the doctrine of lis pendens applies, barring the Labour Court from hearing the same matter between the same parties. The applicants' conduct amounts to forum shopping and is vexatious, especially as they approached the Labour Court after failing to obtain urgent relief in the High Court. The submission that the High Court lacks jurisdiction is rejected, as both courts have concurrent jurisdiction over...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on a punitive scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are to pay the costs on a scale as between attorney and own client.