Red Circle Shoe Manufactures CC v SACTWU and Others (D338/06) [2008] ZALCD 14 (19 February 2008)

Red Circle Shoe Manufactures CC v SACTWU and Others (D338/06) [2008] ZALCD 14 (19 February 2008)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and failure to oppose the original application. The applicant did not produce any affidavit from the former attorney or correspondence to support the claim that there was an agreement to stay the proceedings. The applicant was also negligent in not instructing his attorney and providing funds in time. Given the lack of credible evidence and the applicant's inattentiveness, the application for rescission was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2008] ZALCD 14
Parties
Applicant: Red Circle Shoe Manufacturers CC; Respondent: SACTWU; Respondent: Duduzile Sibiya & 11 Others; Respondent: Bare Traps Shoe Manufacturers CC; Respondent: NBCLI; Respondent: G. Zulu, N.O. (Conciliator)
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 February 2008
Case Number
D338/06
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
Judges
Pillay D
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Failure to Opppose, Stay of Proceedings
Labour Law Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Failure to Opppose Stay of Proceedings

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

Red Circle Shoe Manufacturers CC

Applicant

SACTWU

Respondent

Duduzile Sibiya & 11 Others

Respondent

Bare Traps Shoe Manufacturers CC

Respondent

NBCLI

Respondent

G. Zulu, N.O. (Conciliator)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay and failure to oppose the original application.
  2. 2 Whether there was an agreement to stay the proceedings pending settlement discussions.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct justified rescission of the default judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and failure to oppose the original application. The applicant did not produce any affidavit from the former attorney or correspondence to support the claim that there was an agreement to stay the proceedings. The applicant was also negligent in not instructing his attorney and providing funds in time. Given the lack of credible evidence and the applicant's inattentiveness, the application for rescission was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission is dismissed with costs.