Qubekela Properties CC v Mokoena and Another (J2084/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 422 (8 November 2016)

Qubekela Properties CC v Mokoena and Another (J2084/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 422 (8 November 2016)

The court found that the applicant had initiated review proceedings against the arbitration award and had deposited the amount of compensation into its attorneys' trust account, which, although not immediately to the satisfaction of the court, fulfilled the requirements of section 145(7) and (8) of the Labour Relations Act. The writ of execution was therefore stayed pending the finalisation of the review application. The first respondent's conduct in pursuing execution despite the rescission of the previous order and the pending review was deemed vexatious and an abuse of court process. Consequently, the court ordered that the first respondent pay the costs of the application.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 422
Parties
Applicant: Qubekela Projects CC; Respondent: Mphamo Mokoena; Respondent: The Sheriff, Randburg West
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 November 2016
Case Number
J2084/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Stay Execution of Writ Pending Review
Outcome
Application to stay execution granted; costs awarded against first respondent.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Review of Arbitration Award, Security for Costs, Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Review of Arbitration Award Security for Costs Unfair Dismissal

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Qubekela Projects CC

Applicant

Mphamo Mokoena

Respondent

The Sheriff, Randburg West

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Stay Execution of Writ Pending Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the execution of the writ should be stayed pending the finalisation of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has furnished satisfactory security in terms of section 145(7) and (8) of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the first respondent was vexatious and warrants a punitive costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had initiated review proceedings against the arbitration award and had deposited the amount of compensation into its attorneys' trust account, which, although not immediately to the satisfaction of the court, fulfilled the requirements of section 145(7) and (8) of the Labour Relations Act. The writ of execution was therefore stayed pending the finalisation of the review application. The first respondent's conduct in pursuing execution despite the rescission of the previous order and the pending review was deemed vexatious and an abuse of court process. Consequently, the court ordered that the first respondent pay the costs of the application.

Court Disposition

Application to stay execution granted; costs awarded against first respondent.

Orders

  • The writ of execution issued under case number GAJB 20001/14 on 11 August 2016 is stayed pending finalisation of the review application under case number JR 2743/14.
  • The order shall lapse within 21 days unless the applicant furnishes satisfactory bond of security deposited with the second respondent.