Moslemany v Unilever PLC and Another (LD102/06 , D102/06) [2006] ZALC 6; [2006] 12 BLLR 1167 (LC); (2006) 27 ILJ 2656 (LC) (18 August 2006)

Moslemany v Unilever PLC and Another (LD102/06 , D102/06) [2006] ZALC 6; [2006] 12 BLLR 1167 (LC); (2006) 27 ILJ 2656 (LC) (18 August 2006)

The Labour Court found that it has jurisdiction over the dispute because the applicant resides and works in KwaZulu-Natal, and the respondents conduct business in South Africa through AMET. The employment contract was performed in South Africa, and the termination occurred locally. The court held that both parties are incolae for jurisdictional purposes, and even if they were peregrini, the respondents submitted to the jurisdiction by consenting to service and staying termination pending the court's determination. The court further found that the causes of action arose from employment in South Africa, and the relief sought—a declarator and prohibitory interdict—falls within the court's...

Citation
[2006] ZALC 6
Parties
Applicant: I E L Moslemany; Respondent: Unilever PLC; Respondent: Unilever SA Foods
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 August 2006
Case Number
D102/06
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Referral for Oral Evidence After Interlocutory Objections
Outcome
Objections to jurisdiction and procedural grounds are dismissed with costs; the matter is referred for oral evidence.
Judges
D Pillay
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Declaratory Relief, Prohibitory Interdict, Multinational Enterprise Employment, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, International Labour Organisation Principles
Labour Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of Labour Court Declaratory Relief Prohibitory Interdict Multinational Enterprise Employment Basic Conditions of Employment Act International Labour Organisation Principles

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

I E L Moslemany

Applicant

Unilever PLC

Respondent

Unilever SA Foods

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Referral for Oral Evidence After Interlocutory Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court of South Africa has jurisdiction over the dispute involving multinational enterprises and employment contracts performed partly abroad.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to declaratory and interdictory relief regarding his employment and residence rights.
  3. 3 Whether procedural objections such as urgency, clear right, balance of convenience, and alternative remedy bar the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that it has jurisdiction over the dispute because the applicant resides and works in KwaZulu-Natal, and the respondents conduct business in South Africa through AMET. The employment contract was performed in South Africa, and the termination occurred locally. The court held that both parties are incolae for jurisdictional purposes, and even if they were peregrini, the respondents submitted to the jurisdiction by consenting to service and staying termination pending the court's determination. The court further found that the causes of action arose from employment in South Africa, and the relief sought—a declarator and prohibitory interdict—falls within the court's...

Court Disposition

Objections to jurisdiction and procedural grounds are dismissed with costs; the matter is referred for oral evidence.

Orders

  • The objections on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, urgency, absence of a clear right, balance of convenience, and availability of an alternative remedy are dismissed with costs.
  • The matter is referred for oral evidence in terms of the Draft Order submitted to the Court by consent.