National Education, Health & Allied Workers Union and Others v Vanderbijlpark Society for the Aged (JS 540/05) [2011] ZALCJHB 44 (14 June 2011)
The court found that paragraph [28] of the original judgment was an obvious error, as paragraph [27] made clear that the applicants' condonation application was dismissed and the respondent should not be deprived of costs. The court exercised its power under section 165(b) of the Labour Relations Act to correct the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] ZALCJHB 44
- Parties
- Applicant: National Education, Health & Allied Workers Union; Applicant: Rebecca Molotsi & 64 Others; Respondent: Vanderbijlpark Society for the Aged
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JS 540/05
- Procedural Posture
- Variation Application / Order Varying Previous Judgment
- Outcome
- Paragraph [28] of the original judgment is replaced. The applicants are jointly and severally liable for the respondent’s costs of opposing the application, the one paying the others to be absolved.
- Judges
- R Lagrange
- Legal Topics
- Condonation, Costs Award, Variation of Order
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
National Education, Health & Allied Workers Union
Applicant
Rebecca Molotsi & 64 Others
Applicant
Vanderbijlpark Society for the Aged
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Order Varying Previous Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the original costs order was erroneous and required correction under section 165(b) of the Labour Relations Act.
- 2 Whether the applicants should be held liable for the respondent's costs in opposing the condonation application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that paragraph [28] of the original judgment was an obvious error, as paragraph [27] made clear that the applicants' condonation application was dismissed and the respondent should not be deprived of costs. The court exercised its power under section 165(b) of the Labour Relations Act to correct the error and ordered that the applicants are jointly and severally liable for the respondent's costs in opposing the application.
Court Disposition
Paragraph [28] of the original judgment is replaced. The applicants are jointly and severally liable for the respondent’s costs of opposing the application, the one paying the others to be absolved.
Orders
- Paragraph [28] of the judgment is replaced with: 'The applicants are jointly and severally liable for the respondent’s costs and are ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of opposing the application, the one paying the others to be absolved.'
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
12 paragraphs
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO: JS 540/05 In the matter between NATIONAL EDUCATION, HEALTH & ALLIED WORKERS UNION 1st Applicant REBECCA MOLOTSI & 64 OTHERS 2nd to 65th Applicants and VANDERBIJLPARK SOCIETY FO R THE AGED Respondent ___________________________________________________________________________ VARIATION OF ORDER ___________________________________________________________________________
LAGRANGE, J
It has been brought to my attention that there is an obvious error in the order handed down in the above judgment of 17 February 2011. Paragraphs [26] to [28] of the judgment read as follows:
“[26] On the matter of costs, there appears to be no ongoing relationship to consider and the merits of the application were weak. Consequently I believe this is an instance in which there is no reason not to award costs, considering also that the society is not a profit making organisation.
Order
[27] The application for condonation of the late referral of the applicant's statement of case is dismissed.
[28] No order is made as to costs.”
It is immediately apparent from paragraph [27] of the judgment that I did not intend the respondent to be mulcted in costs, and what is stated in paragraph [28] is an obvious error. Accordingly, in terms of section 165(b) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995, paragraph [28] of the judgment is replaced with the following paragraph:
“[28] The applicants are jointly and severally liable for the respondent’s costs and are ordered to pay the respondents costs of opposing the application, the one paying the others to be absolved.”
ROBERT LAGRANGE
JUDGE OF THE LABOUR COURT
Date of variation of order: 14 June 2011