Ngwenya and Others v Edcon Ltd (J46/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 13 (27 January 2015)

Ngwenya and Others v Edcon Ltd (J46/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 13 (27 January 2015)

The court found that the application was brought prematurely, as the applicants failed to put the respondent on terms to correct the perceived deficiencies in the consultation process before launching the urgent application. The court was satisfied that, regardless of the substantive merits, the lack of urgency was dispositive. On costs, the court held that the powers of attorney were sufficiently broad and that the notice to consult created a reasonable impression of a fait accompli retrenchment. However, the respondent's oral commitments were not recorded in writing and did not sufficiently address the applicants' concerns. Consequently, no adverse costs order was made against the...

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 13
Parties
Applicant: Sibusiso Ngwenta and Twelve Others; Respondent: Edcon Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 January 2015
Case Number
J46/15
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of urgency with no order as to costs.
Judges
R Lagrange
Legal Topics
Retrenchment Consultation, Section 189a Application, Urgency, Costs Award
Labour Law Retrenchment Consultation Section 189a Application Urgency Costs Award

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sibusiso Ngwenta and Twelve Others

Applicant

Edcon Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application was urgent and properly brought before the court.
  2. 2 Whether the consultation process under section 189A of the Labour Relations Act was deficient.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were entitled to an adverse costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was brought prematurely, as the applicants failed to put the respondent on terms to correct the perceived deficiencies in the consultation process before launching the urgent application. The court was satisfied that, regardless of the substantive merits, the lack of urgency was dispositive. On costs, the court held that the powers of attorney were sufficiently broad and that the notice to consult created a reasonable impression of a fait accompli retrenchment. However, the respondent's oral commitments were not recorded in writing and did not sufficiently address the applicants' concerns. Consequently, no adverse costs order was made against the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of urgency with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed for lack of urgency.
  • There is no order as to costs.