Mosiane and Others v Murray And Roberts Cementation (Pty) Ltd (JS 437/10) [2014] ZALCJHB 518 (12 December 2014)

Mosiane and Others v Murray And Roberts Cementation (Pty) Ltd (JS 437/10) [2014] ZALCJHB 518 (12 December 2014)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish any special circumstances that would justify allowing them to file an additional statement of claim. The applicants did not provide sufficient evidence that their previous attorney, Cartwright, lacked the necessary mandate to make concessions at the pre-trial conference or to amend the statement of claim. The court emphasized that pre-trial agreements are binding and cannot be unilaterally repudiated except in special circumstances, which were not demonstrated in this case. The applicants' shifting claims over the years and lack of bona fides further weighed against granting the application. The interests of justice and fairness did...

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 518
Parties
Applicant: Dennis Mosiane & 750 Others; Respondent: Murray & Roberts Cementation (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2014
Case Number
JS 437/10
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to File Further or Additional Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application for leave to file a further or additional statement of claim is dismissed.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Pre Trial Agreement, Mandate of Attorney, Strike Action, Amendment of Pleadings
Labour Law Civil Procedure Automatically Unfair Dismissal Pre Trial Agreement Mandate of Attorney Strike Action Amendment of Pleadings

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dennis Mosiane & 750 Others

Applicant

Murray & Roberts Cementation (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to File Further or Additional Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be permitted to file a further or additional statement of claim.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' attorney had the necessary mandate to make concessions at the pre-trial conference.
  3. 3 Whether special circumstances exist to allow the applicants to resile from the pre-trial agreement and concessions made.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish any special circumstances that would justify allowing them to file an additional statement of claim. The applicants did not provide sufficient evidence that their previous attorney, Cartwright, lacked the necessary mandate to make concessions at the pre-trial conference or to amend the statement of claim. The court emphasized that pre-trial agreements are binding and cannot be unilaterally repudiated except in special circumstances, which were not demonstrated in this case. The applicants' shifting claims over the years and lack of bona fides further weighed against granting the application. The interests of justice and fairness did...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to file a further or additional statement of claim is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to file a further or additional statement of claim is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.