SASBO obo Modibane v Nedbank Limited (J2075/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 320 (28 October 2019)

SASBO obo Modibane v Nedbank Limited (J2075/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 320 (28 October 2019)

The court found that the relief sought by the applicant had already been granted in a previous judgment delivered by Mabaso AJ, and that the requirements for res judicata were met: the same parties, the same cause of action, and the same relief. The pending appeal and suspension of the previous order do not entitle the applicant to seek the same relief again. The application thus constitutes a repetition of litigation and is barred by the principle of res judicata. The court further held that costs should follow the result, as the applicant was forewarned of the respondent's intention to raise res judicata but persisted with the application, which borders on abuse of process.

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 320
Parties
Applicant: SASBO The Finance Union obo Rapula Modibane; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 October 2019
Case Number
J2075/19
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interdict Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Retrenchment Procedure, Section 189 Consultation, Res Judicata, Interdict, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Retrenchment Procedure Section 189 Consultation Res Judicata Interdict Costs Order

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

SASBO The Finance Union obo Rapula Modibane

Applicant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interdict Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interdict restraining the respondent from dismissing him prior to compliance with a fair procedure.
  2. 2 Whether the application is barred by the principle of res judicata due to a previous judgment between the same parties on the same issue.
  3. 3 Whether costs should follow the result given the applicant's persistence despite being forewarned.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the relief sought by the applicant had already been granted in a previous judgment delivered by Mabaso AJ, and that the requirements for res judicata were met: the same parties, the same cause of action, and the same relief. The pending appeal and suspension of the previous order do not entitle the applicant to seek the same relief again. The application thus constitutes a repetition of litigation and is barred by the principle of res judicata. The court further held that costs should follow the result, as the applicant was forewarned of the respondent's intention to raise res judicata but persisted with the application, which borders on abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed, with costs.