Molefe v Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality (J1443/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 291 (19 September 2018)

Molefe v Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality (J1443/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 291 (19 September 2018)

The court determined that it would be inappropriate to decide the s 158(1)(c) application separately from the respondent's archiving application, as both are closely linked and concern the same underlying award. The respondent's argument that a petition for leave to appeal was still pending was rejected, as the petition had been struck off the roll and no authority was provided to support the contention that it remained pending. The court ordered that both applications be heard jointly on an expedited basis and directed the respondent to file any replying affidavit in the archiving application together with a condonation application. No costs order was made.

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 291
Parties
Applicant: Mankwele B Molefe; Respondent: Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2018
Case Number
J1443/17
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Postponement and Joint Hearing Ordered
Outcome
The s 158(1)(c) application is postponed and must be heard jointly with the respondent's archiving application on an expedited basis.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitration Award, Archiving of Application, Condonation for Late Filing, Stay of Execution
Labour Law Civil Procedure Enforcement of Arbitration Award Archiving of Application Condonation for Late Filing Stay of Execution

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mankwele B Molefe

Applicant

Dr Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Postponement and Joint Hearing Ordered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the s 158(1)(c) application to make the arbitration award an order of court be heard jointly with the respondent's archiving application.
  2. 2 Is there a pending petition for leave to appeal that would justify staying the enforcement application.
  3. 3 Has the respondent provided valid grounds for archiving the enforcement application due to delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that it would be inappropriate to decide the s 158(1)(c) application separately from the respondent's archiving application, as both are closely linked and concern the same underlying award. The respondent's argument that a petition for leave to appeal was still pending was rejected, as the petition had been struck off the roll and no authority was provided to support the contention that it remained pending. The court ordered that both applications be heard jointly on an expedited basis and directed the respondent to file any replying affidavit in the archiving application together with a condonation application. No costs order was made.

Court Disposition

The s 158(1)(c) application is postponed and must be heard jointly with the respondent's archiving application on an expedited basis.

Orders

  • The s 158(1)(c) application is postponed and must be re-enrolled to be heard jointly with the respondent's application to order the archiving of the application on the opposed motion roll on an expedited basis.
  • If the respondent seeks to file any replying affidavit in the application to archive the application, it must file such affidavit within 5 days of receipt of this order, together with a condonation application for the late filing thereof.