Moloi K M and others v T M G Euijen (JA54/98) [1999] ZALAC 16 (12 August 1999)

Moloi K M and others v T M G Euijen (JA54/98) [1999] ZALAC 16 (12 August 1999)

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 162 of the Labour Relations Act does not exclude the possibility of a joint costs order against both a party and its representative, where fairness so requires. However, such an order is only justified where the representative's conduct warrants costs de bonis propriis, such as dishonesty or serious misconduct. In this case, the union official did not act dishonestly, nor did he mislead the court or behave contemptuously. The allegations of bias and irregularity against the arbitrator were not substantiated, and the explanation for the alleged 'secret meeting' was accepted. The union was merely assisting a member and did not make the case its own....

Citation
[1999] ZALAC 16
Parties
Appellant: Moloi KM; Appellant: National Entitled Workers' Union; Respondent: T M G Euijen; Respondent: Asahi Investment CC
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 August 1999
Case Number
JA54/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Labour Court Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal succeeds in part; costs order against the union set aside.
Judges
Nicholson
Legal Topics
Costs De Bonis Propriis, Trade Union Representation, Unfair Dismissal, Labour Court Powers
Labour Law Civil Procedure Costs De Bonis Propriis Trade Union Representation Unfair Dismissal Labour Court Powers

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

Moloi KM

Appellant

National Entitled Workers' Union

Appellant

T M G Euijen

Respondent

Asahi Investment CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Labour Court Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court was empowered to make a joint and several costs order against both the applicant and her trade union representative.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the trade union official justified a costs order de bonis propriis.
  3. 3 Whether the allegations of bias and irregularity against the arbitrator were substantiated.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 162 of the Labour Relations Act does not exclude the possibility of a joint costs order against both a party and its representative, where fairness so requires. However, such an order is only justified where the representative's conduct warrants costs de bonis propriis, such as dishonesty or serious misconduct. In this case, the union official did not act dishonestly, nor did he mislead the court or behave contemptuously. The allegations of bias and irregularity against the arbitrator were not substantiated, and the explanation for the alleged 'secret meeting' was accepted. The union was merely assisting a member and did not make the case its own....

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds in part; costs order against the union set aside.

Orders

  • The costs of the application for review are to be paid by the applicant.
  • No costs order is made against the second appellant (the union) in respect of the appeal.