Mgoqi v Centlec (Soc) Limited and Another (4638/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 61 (18 March 2021)

Mgoqi v Centlec (Soc) Limited and Another (4638/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 61 (18 March 2021)

The court found that the previous urgent application between the same parties, on the same cause of action and subject matter, was dismissed with costs and not struck from the roll for lack of urgency. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the dismissal is interpreted as being on the merits, rendering the present application res judicata. Even if the applicant had a prima facie right under clause 16.6 of the employment contract, the clause provides for alternative remedies should the specific position be unavailable, negating irreparable harm. The balance of convenience does not favour the applicant, as Centlec's operational needs require the position to be filled. The application...

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 61
Parties
Applicant: NA Mgoqi; Respondent: Centlec (SOC) Limited; Respondent: Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 2021
Case Number
4638/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Determination of Related Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsels.
Judges
Molitsoane
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Res Judicata, Employment Contract, Specific Performance
Labour Law Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Res Judicata Employment Contract Specific Performance

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NA Mgoqi

Applicant

Centlec (SOC) Limited

Respondent

Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Determination of Related Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim interdict restraining Centlec from filling the advertised position pending final determination of related applications.
  2. 2 Whether the defence of res judicata applies to bar the present application.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie right and irreparable harm justifying interdictory relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the previous urgent application between the same parties, on the same cause of action and subject matter, was dismissed with costs and not struck from the roll for lack of urgency. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the dismissal is interpreted as being on the merits, rendering the present application res judicata. Even if the applicant had a prima facie right under clause 16.6 of the employment contract, the clause provides for alternative remedies should the specific position be unavailable, negating irreparable harm. The balance of convenience does not favour the applicant, as Centlec's operational needs require the position to be filled. The application...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsels.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • The costs shall include the costs of employment of two counsels.