Pheelo and Others v Leeudoorn Gold Mine (J1626/99) [2000] ZALC 146 (13 December 2000)

Pheelo and Others v Leeudoorn Gold Mine (J1626/99) [2000] ZALC 146 (13 December 2000)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their non-appearance at the pre-trial conference and did not present any substantive facts to support their claim. The attorney's failure to attend or communicate his inability to do so was deliberate, and the applicants, having been advised of the consequences, also deliberately abstained. The plea for sympathy based on the applicants' lack of sophistication and resources was rejected as insufficient to constitute good cause. The absence of any plausible case on the merits further weighed against lifting the bar. Consequently, the court held that good cause had not been shown as required by the...

Citation
[2000] ZALC 146
Parties
Applicant: Pheelo and Others; Respondent: Leeudoorn Gold Mine
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 December 2000
Case Number
J1626/99
Procedural Posture
Dismissal Application / Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Following Interlocutory Bar Order
Outcome
Application for dismissal granted; no order as to costs.
Judges
Sutherland
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Good Cause, Want of Prosecution, Section 189 Lra, Lifting of Bar
Labour Law Civil Procedure Retrenchment Good Cause Want of Prosecution Section 189 Lra Lifting of Bar

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pheelo and Others

Applicant

Leeudoorn Gold Mine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Dismissal Application / Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Following Interlocutory Bar Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good cause to have the bar imposed by Judge Pienaar lifted.
  2. 2 Whether the matter should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their non-appearance at the pre-trial conference and did not present any substantive facts to support their claim. The attorney's failure to attend or communicate his inability to do so was deliberate, and the applicants, having been advised of the consequences, also deliberately abstained. The plea for sympathy based on the applicants' lack of sophistication and resources was rejected as insufficient to constitute good cause. The absence of any plausible case on the merits further weighed against lifting the bar. Consequently, the court held that good cause had not been shown as required by the...

Court Disposition

Application for dismissal granted; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • No compliance has been demonstrated with the order of Judge Pienaar of 7 June 2000, as amended.
  • The application for the dismissal of the matter is granted.