Nasuwu and Others v Pearwood Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Wolf security and Another (D364/05) [2008] ZALC 234 (4 December 2008)

Nasuwu and Others v Pearwood Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Wolf security and Another (D364/05) [2008] ZALC 234 (4 December 2008)

The court found that the second referral to the CCMA was properly before the court, as the first referral was fatally defective and replaced by the second. The respondents participated in the process and did not object at the relevant stages. The joinder of the second respondent was not prejudicial, as all relevant documents were served and the same attorneys represented both respondents. The amendments sought by the applicants were largely technical and did not prejudice the respondents, except for the background facts, which were found to be vague, embarrassing, and prejudicial. The delay in bringing the amendment did not justify dismissal, as no actual prejudice was demonstrated. The...

Citation
[2008] ZALC 234
Parties
Applicant: Nasuwu; Applicant: Individual employees as set out in Annexure X; Respondent: Pearwood Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Wolf security; Respondent: Enforce Security Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 December 2008
Case Number
D364/05
Procedural Posture
Leave to Amend / Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim and Application to Set Aside Statement of Claim
Outcome
Leave to amend granted in part; application to set aside dismissed; supplementary affidavit not admitted; no order as to costs.
Judges
U Bhoola
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder, Condonation, Exception to Pleadings
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Amendment of Pleadings Joinder Condonation Exception to Pleadings

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nasuwu

Applicant

Individual employees as set out in Annexure X

Applicant

Pearwood Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Wolf security

Respondent

Enforce Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Amend / Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim and Application to Set Aside Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their Statement of Claim.
  2. 2 Whether the second respondent's application to set aside the Statement of Claim should succeed.
  3. 3 Whether the supplementary affidavit of the applicants' attorney should be admitted without a formal application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second referral to the CCMA was properly before the court, as the first referral was fatally defective and replaced by the second. The respondents participated in the process and did not object at the relevant stages. The joinder of the second respondent was not prejudicial, as all relevant documents were served and the same attorneys represented both respondents. The amendments sought by the applicants were largely technical and did not prejudice the respondents, except for the background facts, which were found to be vague, embarrassing, and prejudicial. The delay in bringing the amendment did not justify dismissal, as no actual prejudice was demonstrated. The...

Court Disposition

Leave to amend granted in part; application to set aside dismissed; supplementary affidavit not admitted; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to amend is granted in respect of amendments 1, 2 and 3 of the applicants’ notice of intention to amend.
  • The amendment in respect of paragraph 4 introducing the background facts is not granted.