Naidoo and Others v Safetyand Security Sectorial Bargaining Council (SSSBC) and Others - Urgency (D216/2023) [2023] ZALCD 15 (17 August 2023)

Naidoo and Others v Safetyand Security Sectorial Bargaining Council (SSSBC) and Others - Urgency (D216/2023) [2023] ZALCD 15 (17 August 2023)

The court found that the applicants failed to act when the need to do so was apparent, thereby creating the alleged urgency themselves. The applicants did not provide sufficient evidence of specific prejudice to the individual applicants, apart from the financial interests of the first applicant's law firm. The relief sought was either not substantiated, not urgent, or not within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The damages claims by the first and second applicants were not sustainable in law and fell outside the court's jurisdiction. The application was deemed an abuse of process, initiated primarily to secure the financial interests of the first and second applicants rather than to...

Citation
[2023] ZALCD 15
Parties
Applicant: Angeni Naidoo; Applicant: Shaun Martin van Vollenhoven; Applicant: List of Applicants annexed as Annexure A (Third to Eighty Third Applicants); Respondent: Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council (SSSBC); Respondent: Khomotso Mosoane (Secretary of the SSSBC); Respondent: Romilla Nunhoo (Dispute Resolution Manager of the SSSBC); Respondent: Daylan Welcome (Dispute Resolution Officer of the SSSBC); Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: National Commissioner South African Police Service
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 August 2023
Case Number
D216/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Matter From the Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against first and second applicants.
Judges
Allen-Yaman
Legal Topics
Urgency in Labour Court, Self Created Urgency, Costs Award, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Review of Administrative Action
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgency in Labour Court Self Created Urgency Costs Award Jurisdiction of Labour Court Review of Administrative Action

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

Parties

Angeni Naidoo

Applicant

Shaun Martin van Vollenhoven

Applicant

List of Applicants annexed as Annexure A (Third to Eighty Third Applicants)

Applicant

Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council (SSSBC)

Respondent

Khomotso Mosoane (Secretary of the SSSBC)

Respondent

Romilla Nunhoo (Dispute Resolution Manager of the SSSBC)

Respondent

Daylan Welcome (Dispute Resolution Officer of the SSSBC)

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

National Commissioner South African Police Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike Matter From the Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application brought by the applicants is urgent and should be heard as such.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie case for the relief sought, including the setting aside of SSSBC directives and compelling enrolment of arbitrations.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate damages claims by attorneys and counsel for loss of income due to non-enrolment of arbitrations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to act when the need to do so was apparent, thereby creating the alleged urgency themselves. The applicants did not provide sufficient evidence of specific prejudice to the individual applicants, apart from the financial interests of the first applicant's law firm. The relief sought was either not substantiated, not urgent, or not within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The damages claims by the first and second applicants were not sustainable in law and fell outside the court's jurisdiction. The application was deemed an abuse of process, initiated primarily to secure the financial interests of the first and second applicants rather than to...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against first and second applicants.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
  • The first and second applicants are ordered to pay the first to third respondents' costs, jointly and severally, the one paying, the other to be absolved.