NUM obo Ngada and Others v Asphalt Services CC and Others (P81/12) [2015] ZALCPE 14 (6 March 2015)

NUM obo Ngada and Others v Asphalt Services CC and Others (P81/12) [2015] ZALCPE 14 (6 March 2015)

The court found that the application was based on the respondents' failure to comply with the court order, not the settlement agreement. The respondents' arguments regarding the termination of fixed term contracts and non-compliance by the applicants were rejected, as no evidence of such contracts was provided and the respondents did not challenge the validity of the court order. The third respondent was aware of the order and wilfully refused to comply. The second respondent, represented by the third respondent, was also bound by the order and failed to comply upon becoming aware of it. The court held that both respondents were in wilful default and thus in contempt of the court order.

Citation
[2015] ZALCPE 14
Parties
Applicant: NUM obo Xolani Ngada & 8 Others; Respondent: Asphalt Services CC; Respondent: Glynis Randal (Larrett); Respondent: Even Kentani
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 March 2015
Case Number
P81/12
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Judgment
Outcome
The application for contempt of court is granted against the second and third respondents.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Settlement Agreement, Reinstatement, Fixed Term Contracts
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Settlement Agreement Reinstatement Fixed Term Contracts

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NUM obo Xolani Ngada & 8 Others

Applicant

Asphalt Services CC

Respondent

Glynis Randal (Larrett)

Respondent

Even Kentani

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second and third respondents are in contempt of the Labour Court order granted on 14 July 2010.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents wilfully failed to comply with the reinstatement terms of the court order.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' reliance on alleged termination of fixed term contracts negates their obligation under the court order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was based on the respondents' failure to comply with the court order, not the settlement agreement. The respondents' arguments regarding the termination of fixed term contracts and non-compliance by the applicants were rejected, as no evidence of such contracts was provided and the respondents did not challenge the validity of the court order. The third respondent was aware of the order and wilfully refused to comply. The second respondent, represented by the third respondent, was also bound by the order and failed to comply upon becoming aware of it. The court held that both respondents were in wilful default and thus in contempt of the court order.

Court Disposition

The application for contempt of court is granted against the second and third respondents.

Orders

  • The second and third respondents are declared to be in contempt of the order granted on 14 July 2010 under case number J116/10.
  • The second and third respondents are sentenced to a fine of R2000.00 or 30 days imprisonment, suspended for two years on condition that they are not convicted of contempt of court during the suspension period.