Radebe and Others v Aurum Institute (C662/2023) [2023] ZALCCT 66; (2024) 45 ILJ 876 (LC) (22 December 2023)

Radebe and Others v Aurum Institute (C662/2023) [2023] ZALCCT 66; (2024) 45 ILJ 876 (LC) (22 December 2023)

The court found that the applicants failed to act with the required urgency, having known about the respondent's recruitment process since April 2023 but only seeking urgent relief in December 2023. The delay was unexplained and demonstrated a lack of diligence. The urgency claimed was self-created, and the applicants did not set out sufficient reasons why substantial relief could not be obtained in due course. The ongoing recruitment process did not prejudice the applicants' rights to back pay or reinstatement should they succeed in the main application. The court held that self-created urgency is not entertained and struck the application off the roll. Regarding costs, the court...

Citation
[2023] ZALCCT 66
Parties
Applicant: Sibongelenn Radebe and 16 Others; Respondent: The Aurum Institute
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 December 2023
Case Number
C662/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Off Urgent Roll
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; no order as to costs.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Urgency in Labour Court, Self Created Urgency, Section 197 Transfer, Interdict Recruitment, Costs in Labour Matters
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgency in Labour Court Self Created Urgency Section 197 Transfer Interdict Recruitment Costs in Labour Matters

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sibongelenn Radebe and 16 Others

Applicant

The Aurum Institute

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike Off Urgent Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to stop the recruitment process is urgent and should be entertained on the urgent roll.
  2. 2 Whether any urgency that exists is self-created by the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants acted diligently and with the urgency required by Labour Court Rule 8.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to act with the required urgency, having known about the respondent's recruitment process since April 2023 but only seeking urgent relief in December 2023. The delay was unexplained and demonstrated a lack of diligence. The urgency claimed was self-created, and the applicants did not set out sufficient reasons why substantial relief could not be obtained in due course. The ongoing recruitment process did not prejudice the applicants' rights to back pay or reinstatement should they succeed in the main application. The court held that self-created urgency is not entertained and struck the application off the roll. Regarding costs, the court...

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll for lack of urgency.
  • There is no order as to costs.