Ncube v 4 B Protection Services and Others (J906-20) [2022] ZALCJHB 50 (15 March 2022)

Ncube v 4 B Protection Services and Others (J906-20) [2022] ZALCJHB 50 (15 March 2022)

The court found that the respondents did not act wilfully or mala fide in failing to comply with the settlement agreement. The impossibility of performance arose because the contract with Amnesty International, which was the only available site for the applicant, was not renewed, and the applicant did not possess...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 50
Parties
Applicant: Mbekezele Ncube; Respondent: 4 B Protection Services; Respondent: Tau Nkomo; Respondent: Paul Koffler
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 March 2022
Case Number
J906-20
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Contempt application dismissed; respondents not found in contempt.
Judges
T Deane
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Settlement Agreement, Reinstatement, Wilful Noncompliance
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Settlement Agreement Reinstatement Wilful Noncompliance

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mbekezele Ncube

Applicant

4 B Protection Services

Respondent

Tau Nkomo

Respondent

Paul Koffler

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' failure to comply with the certified settlement agreement constitutes contempt of court.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents acted wilfully and mala fide in not reinstating the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether impossibility of performance due to operational reasons excuses non-compliance with the settlement agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents did not act wilfully or mala fide in failing to comply with the settlement agreement. The impossibility of performance arose because the contract with Amnesty International, which was the only available site for the applicant, was not renewed, and the applicant did not possess the necessary documentation to be legally employed or registered under the Private Security Industry Regulations Act. The respondents made reasonable attempts to place the applicant and believed, in good faith, that the matter would be revisited at the CCMA. The court held that honest belief in justification or impossibility of performance negates contempt, and there was no...

Court Disposition

Contempt application dismissed; respondents not found in contempt.

Orders

  • The First and Second Respondents are found not to be in contempt.
  • The rule nisi of 22 October 2021 is discharged.