Moje and Another v Magalies Water (JR871/13) [2021] ZALCJHB 321 (6 October 2021)

Moje and Another v Magalies Water (JR871/13) [2021] ZALCJHB 321 (6 October 2021)

The court found that the applicants were aware of the trial date and roll call time, as communicated in advance and set out in the Practice Manual. The applicants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their absence and did not demonstrate good cause for their default. The requirements for rescission under Rule 16A were not met, as there was no fact unknown to the court at the time of the order that would have altered the outcome. The application for rescission was therefore dismissed. The court exercised its discretion not to award costs, considering the absence of malice and the principles governing costs in labour matters.

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 321
Parties
Applicant: Steven Moje; Applicant: Momphati Tlhapane; Respondent: Magalies Water
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 October 2021
Case Number
JR871/13
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Rescission of Court Order
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Mosam
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Good Cause Requirement, Default Judgment, Practice Manual Compliance
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Good Cause Requirement Default Judgment Practice Manual Compliance

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

Steven Moje

Applicant

Momphati Tlhapane

Applicant

Magalies Water

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Rescission of Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for their failure to attend the trial roll call.
  2. 2 Whether the court order dismissing the applicants' claim should be rescinded under Rule 16A.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their default.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were aware of the trial date and roll call time, as communicated in advance and set out in the Practice Manual. The applicants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their absence and did not demonstrate good cause for their default. The requirements for rescission under Rule 16A were not met, as there was no fact unknown to the court at the time of the order that would have altered the outcome. The application for rescission was therefore dismissed. The court exercised its discretion not to award costs, considering the absence of malice and the principles governing costs in labour matters.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.