Mwansa v Rand Water (J501/24) [2024] ZALCJHB 386 (17 September 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZALCJHB 386
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Myburgh
- Case number
- J501/24
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Myburgh
- Case number
- J501/24
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant had made out a case for the relief sought in her interlocutory application. Given the absence of opposition and the urgency of the matter, the court ordered the respondent to grant the applicant access to her work tools, including her laptop, and to its computer network. The court further ordered that no information on the laptop be deleted or tampered with prior to access and that all information be decrypted to enable use. The relief was granted to ensure the applicant could prepare for the main application and to preserve relevant evidence.
Court disposition
Interlocutory relief granted in favour of the applicant; respondent ordered to provide access to work tools and computer network.
Orders
- The respondent shall give the applicant access to the work tools that she used while in the respondent’s employ, including her laptop.
- In the run up to the applicant being granted access to her laptop, no information shall be deleted or tampered with.
- All information on the applicant’s laptop must be decrypted to enable her to make use of it.
- The respondent shall also give the applicant access to its computer network.
02
Material facts
Parties
Gwendoline Belinda Mwansa
ApplicantRand Water
Respondent Counsel: T Kwaw-Asante03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Interlocutory Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant is entitled to access her work tools and the respondent's computer network pending the main application.
- 02
Whether the respondent should be compelled to decrypt information on the applicant's laptop and prevent tampering or deletion of data.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant, appearing in person, argued that she required access to her work tools, including her laptop and the respondent's computer network, to prepare for the main application and to continue her professional activities. She sought relief as set out in paragraphs 1-4 of her notice of motion, emphasizing the necessity of decrypting her laptop and ensuring no data was deleted or tampered with prior to access.
- Respondent
- The respondent, represented by Adv T Kwaw-Asante, indicated willingness to consent to certain relief sought but no agreement was reached. The respondent did not oppose the interlocutory application and did not advance substantive arguments against the relief requested.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act
Interim relief may be granted where an applicant demonstrates a clear right and urgency, particularly in employment disputes involving access to essential work tools.
- 02
South African common law on preservation orders
The court may order preservation of evidence and prevent tampering with digital information pending final determination of the main dispute.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant had made out a case for the relief sought in her interlocutory application. Given the absence of opposition and the urgency of the matter, the court ordered the respondent to grant the applicant access to her work tools, including her laptop, and to its computer network. The court further ordered that no information on the laptop be deleted or tampered with prior to access and that all information be decrypted to enable use. The relief was granted to ensure the applicant could prepare for the main application and to preserve relevant evidence.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that confusion regarding the enrolled application should be avoided in future to ensure clarity for all parties.
- The order granted differs slightly in substance and semantics from the relief originally sought, reflecting the court's discretion in tailoring appropriate remedies.
Court disposition
Interlocutory relief granted in favour of the applicant; respondent ordered to provide access to work tools and computer network.
- The respondent shall give the applicant access to the work tools that she used while in the respondent’s employ, including her laptop.
- In the run up to the applicant being granted access to her laptop, no information shall be deleted or tampered with.
- All information on the applicant’s laptop must be decrypted to enable her to make use of it.
- The respondent shall also give the applicant access to its computer network.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Order
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not reportable
Case no: J501/24
In the matter between:
GWENDOLINE
BELINDA MWANSA Applicant and
RAND
WATER Respondent
Heard: 10 September 2024
Delivered: 13 September 2024
JUDGMENT
MYBURGH, AJ
[1] This matter came before me on the unopposed motion roll on 10 September 2024. After hearing argument, I reserved judgment in order to re-read the file.
[2] There are two applications under the above-mentioned case number: an application in terms of section 77(3) of the BCEA for the payment of certain monies allegedly owing by the respondent to the applicant (the main application); and an interlocutory application principally to compel the respondent to grant the applicant access to her work tools and its computer network.
[3] The main application is opposed, but the interlocutory application is not, with there apparently having been some confusion about what had been enrolled for hearing.
[4] The applicant appeared in person and Ms Kwaw-Asante appeared for the respondent before me. It was clarified that only the unopposed interlocutory application stands to be determined at this stage. Counsel for the respondent also indicated that the respondent was prepared to consent to certain of the relief sought in the interlocutory application, but no agreement could be reached.
[5] After some debate, the applicant indicated that she sought relief in terms of paras 1-4 of her notice of motion in the interlocutory application. I am satisfied that she made out a case for the grant of such relief, albeit that my order differs a little in substance and semantics.
[6] Accordingly, the following order is made:
1. the respondent shall give the applicant access to the work tools that she used while in the respondent’s employ, including her laptop;
2. in the run up to the applicant being granted access to her laptop, no information shall be deleted or tampered with;
3. all information on the applicant’s laptop must be decrypted to enable her to make use of it;
4. the respondent shall also give the applicant access to its computer network.
Myburgh, AJ
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of RSA
Appearances
For the applicant: in person
For the respondent: Adv T Kwaw-Asante instructed by Moloto Sofile Inc
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.