SAOU obo Steenkamp and Others v Silverton High School and Another (J4379/2018) [2019] ZALCJHB 4 (11 January 2019)

SAOU obo Steenkamp and Others v Silverton High School and Another (J4379/2018) [2019] ZALCJHB 4 (11 January 2019)

The court found that the urgency claimed by the applicants was self-created, as they delayed approaching the court and had already referred the dispute to the CCMA, where alternative remedies were available. The applicants failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying urgent intervention. The court further held that procedural defects, such as non-joinder of interested parties and lack of confirmatory affidavits, compounded the difficulties with the application. Given these factors, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the matter and that the application should be dismissed rather than merely struck off the roll. Costs were awarded against the...

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 4
Parties
Applicant: SAOU obo Steenkamp & 3 Others; Respondent: Silverton High School; Respondent: School Governing Body, Silverton High School
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 January 2019
Case Number
J4379/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief; Opposed Motion
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicants' union.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Unlawful Termination, Urgent Relief, Jurisdiction, Employment Contracts
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unlawful Termination Urgent Relief Jurisdiction Employment Contracts

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAOU obo Steenkamp & 3 Others

Applicant

Silverton High School

Respondent

School Governing Body, Silverton High School

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief; Opposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the applicants' contracts of employment was unlawful and wrongful.
  2. 2 Whether the application should be treated as urgent under Rule 8 of the Labour Court Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to determine the dispute given the referral to the CCMA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the urgency claimed by the applicants was self-created, as they delayed approaching the court and had already referred the dispute to the CCMA, where alternative remedies were available. The applicants failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying urgent intervention. The court further held that procedural defects, such as non-joinder of interested parties and lack of confirmatory affidavits, compounded the difficulties with the application. Given these factors, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the matter and that the application should be dismissed rather than merely struck off the roll. Costs were awarded against the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicants' union.

Orders

  • The applicants' urgent application is dismissed.
  • SAOU is ordered to pay the costs of this application.