Mosoma v Zerbatone Mining (Pty) Ltd and Others (JS 287/16) [2020] ZALCJHB 235 (12 October 2020)

Mosoma v Zerbatone Mining (Pty) Ltd and Others (JS 287/16) [2020] ZALCJHB 235 (12 October 2020)

The court found that the respondents were served with the reinstatement and backpay order on multiple occasions and failed to comply. While non-compliance was established, the existence of a rescission application, albeit disputed in terms of its procedural propriety, created uncertainty regarding wilfulness and mala fide. The court held that, in the interests of justice, only an interim order of contempt should be granted pending final determination of the rescission application. The matter was set down for a return date, allowing both parties to file written heads of argument and for the rescission application to be properly ventilated before a final order is made.

Citation
[2020] ZALCJHB 235
Parties
Applicant: Mokonyane William Mosoma; Respondent: Zerbatone Mining (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: P Mohuba; Respondent: Manamalala Phasha
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 October 2020
Case Number
JS 287/16
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Interim Order Pending Final Determination
Outcome
Interim order of contempt granted against the second and third respondents, pending final determination on the return date.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Default Judgment, Reinstatement, Backpay, Rescission Application
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Default Judgment Reinstatement Backpay Rescission Application

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mokonyane William Mosoma

Applicant

Zerbatone Mining (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

P Mohuba

Respondent

Manamalala Phasha

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Interim Order Pending Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are in contempt of court for failing to comply with the reinstatement and backpay order.
  2. 2 Whether a pending rescission application suspends the operation of the court order.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' non-compliance was wilful and mala fide.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents were served with the reinstatement and backpay order on multiple occasions and failed to comply. While non-compliance was established, the existence of a rescission application, albeit disputed in terms of its procedural propriety, created uncertainty regarding wilfulness and mala fide. The court held that, in the interests of justice, only an interim order of contempt should be granted pending final determination of the rescission application. The matter was set down for a return date, allowing both parties to file written heads of argument and for the rescission application to be properly ventilated before a final order is made.

Court Disposition

Interim order of contempt granted against the second and third respondents, pending final determination on the return date.

Orders

  • The Second and Third Respondents, who represent the First Respondent, are declared in contempt of court for failing to comply with the order granted on 30 April 2018.
  • This order operates as an interim order pending the return date on 6 November 2020, when a final determination will be made regarding the rescission application.