Phaala and Others v Selby Construction CC and Others (JR2320/22) [2024] ZALCJHB 380 (8 September 2024)

Phaala and Others v Selby Construction CC and Others (JR2320/22) [2024] ZALCJHB 380 (8 September 2024)

The court found that the applicants' objections to the commissioning of the founding affidavit were not substantiated by evidence. The deponent confirmed she was present before the commissioner of oaths, and no reply was filed to challenge this. The reference to the deponent as "he" was a clerical error and did not affect the substance of the attestation. The difference in signing dates between the notice of motion and the affidavit was not material. The court held that there was substantial compliance with the regulations governing affidavits, and any non-compliance was condonable. The interlocutory application was deemed unnecessary and dismissed to prevent delay in the main review...

Citation
[2024] ZALCJHB 380
Parties
Applicant: Mathume P Phaala and 17 Others; Respondent: Selby Construction CC; Respondent: Willem Koekemoer N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2024
Case Number
JR2320/22
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Strike Out Founding Affidavit and Notice of Motion in Main Review Proceedings
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
SB Nhlapo
Legal Topics
Affidavit Formalities, Substantial Compliance, Review Application, Labour Court Rules
Civil Procedure Labour Law Affidavit Formalities Substantial Compliance Review Application Labour Court Rules

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathume P Phaala and 17 Others

Applicant

Selby Construction CC

Respondent

Willem Koekemoer N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Strike Out Founding Affidavit and Notice of Motion in Main Review Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the founding affidavit in the main review application was properly commissioned in terms of the regulations.
  2. 2 Whether the discrepancy in the gender reference and signing dates constitutes a fatal irregularity.
  3. 3 Whether the interlocutory application should be entertained or dismissed for procedural inefficiency.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' objections to the commissioning of the founding affidavit were not substantiated by evidence. The deponent confirmed she was present before the commissioner of oaths, and no reply was filed to challenge this. The reference to the deponent as "he" was a clerical error and did not affect the substance of the attestation. The difference in signing dates between the notice of motion and the affidavit was not material. The court held that there was substantial compliance with the regulations governing affidavits, and any non-compliance was condonable. The interlocutory application was deemed unnecessary and dismissed to prevent delay in the main review...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The interlocutory application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.