SAMWU obo Mathibeng v Dr JS Moroka Local Municipality and Another (J1959/14) [2014] ZALCJHB 350 (11 September 2014)

SAMWU obo Mathibeng v Dr JS Moroka Local Municipality and Another (J1959/14) [2014] ZALCJHB 350 (11 September 2014)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency. The mere assertion that applications of this nature are urgent is insufficient. The applicant became aware of the rescission application on 15 July 2014 but only launched the urgent application on 28 August 2014, with no explanation for the delay. The court held that urgency must be properly motivated and demonstrated, and in this case, the applicant did not do so. Accordingly, the application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency.

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 350
Parties
Applicant: SAMWU obo E.M. Mathibeng; Respondent: DR JS Moroka Local Municipality; Respondent: Municipal Manager: DR JS Moroka Local Municipality
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 September 2014
Case Number
J1959/14
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Enforce Court Order Pending Rescission Proceedings
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against applicant.
Judges
O Mooki
Legal Topics
Urgent Application, Enforcement of Court Orders, Rescission of Judgment
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgent Application Enforcement of Court Orders Rescission of Judgment

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAMWU obo E.M. Mathibeng

Applicant

DR JS Moroka Local Municipality

Respondent

Municipal Manager: DR JS Moroka Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Enforce Court Order Pending Rescission Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to enforce the court order pending rescission proceedings is urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided sufficient reasons for urgency.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency. The mere assertion that applications of this nature are urgent is insufficient. The applicant became aware of the rescission application on 15 July 2014 but only launched the urgent application on 28 August 2014, with no explanation for the delay. The court held that urgency must be properly motivated and demonstrated, and in this case, the applicant did not do so. Accordingly, the application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay costs.