Mbuyisa and Others v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa and Others (J1366/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 132 (11 June 2019)

Mbuyisa and Others v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa and Others (J1366/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 132 (11 June 2019)

The court found the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 8, having delayed approaching the court without adequate explanation. The loss of remuneration, while severe, does not in itself justify urgency. The applicants did not properly join the relevant service providers, despite being provided with their particulars. The applicants failed to demonstrate an employment relationship with PRASA, as their own affidavits indicated they sought to be insourced by PRASA, and their employment was procured through service providers. Jurisdiction was not established, and the application was dismissed. No order as to costs was made, considering the circumstances.

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 132
Parties
Applicant: Cathrine Mbuyisa & 115 Others; Respondent: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa; Respondent: Unknown Contract Cleaning Companies operating at Park Station, Johannesburg
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 June 2019
Case Number
J1366/19
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Urgent Application for Declaratory and Interdictory Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of urgency and jurisdiction. No order as to costs.
Judges
E Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Urgent Application, Lockout, Employment Relationship, Jurisdiction, Misjoinder
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgent Application Lockout Employment Relationship Jurisdiction Misjoinder

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cathrine Mbuyisa & 115 Others

Applicant

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa

Respondent

Unknown Contract Cleaning Companies operating at Park Station, Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Urgent Application for Declaratory and Interdictory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants established urgency justifying deviation from ordinary court procedures.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants demonstrated an employment relationship with the first respondent (PRASA) to ground jurisdiction.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants properly joined the relevant service providers as parties to the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 8, having delayed approaching the court without adequate explanation. The loss of remuneration, while severe, does not in itself justify urgency. The applicants did not properly join the relevant service providers, despite being provided with their particulars. The applicants failed to demonstrate an employment relationship with PRASA, as their own affidavits indicated they sought to be insourced by PRASA, and their employment was procured through service providers. Jurisdiction was not established, and the application was dismissed. No order as to costs was made, considering the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of urgency and jurisdiction. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicants’ urgent application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.