Rikhotso and Others v Bothongo and Others (Variation of Order) (JS243/23; JS215/23) [2024] ZALCJHB 514 (15 October 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZALCJHB 514
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- M T M Phehane
- Case number
- JS243/23; JS215/23
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- M T M Phehane
- Case number
- JS243/23; JS215/23
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court found that the case file was in disarray, with multiple respondents cited inconsistently across pleadings and supporting documents. The applicant was unable to clarify which parties were properly before the Court, and the supporting affidavit did not resolve the confusion. Given the lack of clarity and the risk of prejudice, the Court determined that it could not proceed with the default judgment application. The matter was therefore removed from the roll, and the applicant was directed to seek assistance from the pro bono office to regularize the proceedings.
Court disposition
Matter removed from the roll due to confusion regarding parties and pleadings.
Orders
- The matter is removed from the roll.
- The applicant is to approach the pro bono office for assistance in the further conduct and prosecution of this application.
02
Material facts
Parties
Fanyana Weslie Rikhotso and 5 Others
ApplicantMohaduba Bothongo
RespondentA du Toit
RespondentB Schwartz
RespondentFanyana Weslie Rikhotso and 24 Others
Applicant03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Variation of Order Following Default Judgment Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the correct parties are properly identified before the Court.
- 02
Whether the pleadings and supporting documents are sufficiently clear to proceed with the default judgment application.
- 03
Whether the matter should remain on the roll given the confusion regarding parties and pleadings.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Mr. Rikhotso, self-represented, was unable to clarify which applicants were before the Court and failed to explain the discrepancies in the pleadings and supporting documents. He stated there were twelve remaining applicants but provided no coherent explanation.
- Respondent
- No respondent appeared or made submissions at the hearing. The record reflects confusion regarding the identity of respondents, with various entities cited in different pleadings and orders.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Court practice
A court must be satisfied that the parties before it are correctly identified and that the pleadings are in order before granting default judgment.
- 02
Labour Court practice
Where there is confusion or uncertainty regarding the parties or pleadings, the matter may be removed from the roll to prevent prejudice and ensure proper administration of justice.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court found that the case file was in disarray, with multiple respondents cited inconsistently across pleadings and supporting documents. The applicant was unable to clarify which parties were properly before the Court, and the supporting affidavit did not resolve the confusion. Given the lack of clarity and the risk of prejudice, the Court determined that it could not proceed with the default judgment application. The matter was therefore removed from the roll, and the applicant was directed to seek assistance from the pro bono office to regularize the proceedings.
Obiter and limits
- The state of the Court file and pleadings demonstrates the importance of proper case management and clear identification of parties.
- Self-represented litigants are encouraged to seek assistance to avoid procedural confusion and ensure fair adjudication.
Court disposition
Matter removed from the roll due to confusion regarding parties and pleadings.
- The matter is removed from the roll.
- The applicant is to approach the pro bono office for assistance in the further conduct and prosecution of this application.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Order
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: JS243/23
In the matter between:
FANYANA WESLIE RIKHOTSO AND 5 OTHERS Applicant and
MOHADUBA
BOTHONGO First Respondent
A
DU TOIT Second Respondent
B
SCHWARTZ Third Respondent AND Case no: JS 215/23
FANYANA WESLIE RIKHOTSO AND 24 OTHERS Applicant and
MOHADUBA
BOTHONGO First Respondent
A
DU TOIT Second Respondent
B
SCHWARTZ Third Respondent
Heard: 9 October 2024
Delivered: 15 October 2024
VARIATION OF ORDER
PHEHANE, J
[1] On 9 October 2024 a default judgement application under the consolidated case numbers JS 215/23 and JS 243/23 served before me. Mr. Rikhotso, the applicant was self-representing at the hearing.
[2] The content of the Court file is in a total state of disarray, as it contains various documents relating to different respondents and unbound papers.
[3] It transpires that different respondents are cited in the pleadings contained in the Court file. The following are cited as respondents under the same aforesaid case numbers: Way Gard Security SA as the first respondent and Way Gard Drift Security as the second respondent.
[4] On 23 August 2023, van Niekerk J (as he then was), issued a court order consolidating case numbers JS 215/23 and JS 243/23 in the disputes between Rikhotso and 5 others versus Mohabuda Bothongo, A du Toit and B. Schwartz and Rikhotso and 24 others versus the same respondents.
[5] On 31 January 2024, the consolidated case was enrolled for the hearing of a default judgment application. On that date, Makhura J issued an order removing the matter from the roll to afford the applicants an opportunity to amend their papers. It is unclear what pleadings were before Makhura J at the time, as the respondent cited in the Court order is Bothongo Group.
[6] On 11 June 2024 the matter was enrolled for the hearing of a default judgment application once again. On this date, Notshe AJ issued an order removing the matter from the roll for the reason that there is no proof that the dispute was referred to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) or the bargaining council. Again, it is unclear what pleadings were before Notshe AJ.
[7] On 9 October 2024, the matter served before me for the hearing of a default judgment application. It transpires that different respondents (Way Gard) are now cited as respondents in a statement of claim filed under the same consolidated case numbers on 6 February 2024. Interestingly, the certificate of outcome on page 111 of the pleadings bundle relates to Fanyana Rikhotso an 12 others against Wayguard Security issued on 9 July 2024. Further, annexures in the form of confirmatory affidavits bearing case numbers JS243/23 and JS 215/23 together with unexplained payslips and correspondence are filed with this statement of claim.
[8] Given this state of affairs, I could not make out which case is before me, and which parties are before me. Only one affidavit in the mountain of papers was filed by Mr. Rikhosto in support of a default judgment application. Mr. Rikhotso could not assist the Court in explaining who the correct applicants are: he made matters worse and said there are twelve remaining applicants.
[9] I therefore issued an order removing the matter from the roll and further orders.
Variation of order
[10] In view of the confusion as to who the correct parties are before this Court and given the state of the Court file, the order is varied as follows:
VARIED
ORDER
1. The matter is removed from the roll.
2. The applicant is to approach the pro bono office for assistance in the further conduct and prosecution of this application.
M. T. M. Phehane
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.