Motete v Dlamini and Another (2025/040717) [2025] ZALCJHB 155 (24 April 2025)

Motete v Dlamini and Another (2025/040717) [2025] ZALCJHB 155 (24 April 2025)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate urgency, as the application was brought five months after the contempt order and after leave to appeal was granted. The alleged urgency was self-created, and the applicant did not provide sufficient reasons for the delay. Financial hardship and medical issues were not substantiated to the required standard, and the compensation awarded remains secured under section 145(7) and (8) of the Labour Relations Act. The court held that no exceptional circumstances were proven, and the applicant did not discharge the onus of showing irreparable harm if the order was not executed. Conversely, the respondents could suffer harm if the order was...

Citation
[2025] ZALCJHB 155
Parties
Applicant: Mpho Mildred Motete; Respondent: Themba Thomas Cyril Dlamini; Respondent: Performing Arts Centre of the Free State
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 April 2025
Case Number
2025/040717
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Execute Court Order Pending Leave to Appeal Under Section 18(3) of the Superior Court Act
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Urgent Application, Execution Pending Appeal, Contempt of Court, Exceptional Circumstances, Irreparable Harm
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgent Application Execution Pending Appeal Contempt of Court Exceptional Circumstances Irreparable Harm

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mpho Mildred Motete

Applicant

Themba Thomas Cyril Dlamini

Respondent

Performing Arts Centre of the Free State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Execute Court Order Pending Leave to Appeal Under Section 18(3) of the Superior Court Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant demonstrated urgency justifying the application to execute the court order pending leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances exist for the execution of the order under section 18(3) of the Superior Court Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if the order is not executed and the respondents will not suffer irreparable harm if it is executed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate urgency, as the application was brought five months after the contempt order and after leave to appeal was granted. The alleged urgency was self-created, and the applicant did not provide sufficient reasons for the delay. Financial hardship and medical issues were not substantiated to the required standard, and the compensation awarded remains secured under section 145(7) and (8) of the Labour Relations Act. The court held that no exceptional circumstances were proven, and the applicant did not discharge the onus of showing irreparable harm if the order was not executed. Conversely, the respondents could suffer harm if the order was...

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency.

Orders

  • The applicant’s application is struck off from the roll on account of lack of urgency.
  • There is no order as to costs.