Monyai v Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (J1388/15) [2016] ZALCD 17 (12 August 2016)

Monyai v Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (J1388/15) [2016] ZALCD 17 (12 August 2016)

The court found that the respondents provided a reasonable and detailed explanation demonstrating they were not in contempt of court. The applicant failed to provide a substantive response or evidence to counter the respondents' version, instead insisting on a financial settlement rather than reinstatement. The applicant's refusal to engage with the respondents' attorney and his insistence on a financial order, which the court was not empowered to grant in these proceedings, further undermined his case. Accordingly, the contempt application was dismissed.

Citation
[2016] ZALCD 17
Parties
Applicant: Phathutshedso Solomon Monyai; Respondent: Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: W J Bartman
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 August 2016
Case Number
J1388/15
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Contempt Application
Outcome
Contempt application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Whitcher
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Court Orders, Return to Work, Financial Settlement
Labour Law Contempt of Court Enforcement of Court Orders Return to Work Financial Settlement

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phathutshedso Solomon Monyai

Applicant

Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

W J Bartman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Contempt Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are in contempt of court for failing to comply with a previous order.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to establish contempt.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a financial settlement instead of reinstatement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents provided a reasonable and detailed explanation demonstrating they were not in contempt of court. The applicant failed to provide a substantive response or evidence to counter the respondents' version, instead insisting on a financial settlement rather than reinstatement. The applicant's refusal to engage with the respondents' attorney and his insistence on a financial order, which the court was not empowered to grant in these proceedings, further undermined his case. Accordingly, the contempt application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Contempt application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The contempt application is dismissed with no order as to costs.