Seitisho and Others v Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd (JS 427-16) [2021] ZALCJHB 77 (1 June 2021)

Seitisho and Others v Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd (JS 427-16) [2021] ZALCJHB 77 (1 June 2021)

The court found that the omission of the schedule listing material and relevant documents was an error and that the applicants acted promptly upon discovering it. As the application was unopposed and there was no evidence of prejudice to the respondent, the court held that the amendment should be granted in terms of Rule 6(1)(c) of the Labour Court Rules. The court further determined that, given the interlocutory nature of the application and the absence of opposition, no costs order was warranted.

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 77
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Seitisho & 2 Others; Respondent: Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 2021
Case Number
JS 427-16
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Amendment of Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application granted. Leave to amend statement of claim is given.
Judges
F. Coetzee
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Labour Court Rules, Interlocutory Application
Labour Law Amendment of Pleadings Labour Court Rules Interlocutory Application

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Seitisho & 2 Others

Applicant

Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Amendment of Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their statement of claim to include a schedule of material and relevant documents.
  2. 2 Whether the omission of the schedule prejudices the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the omission of the schedule listing material and relevant documents was an error and that the applicants acted promptly upon discovering it. As the application was unopposed and there was no evidence of prejudice to the respondent, the court held that the amendment should be granted in terms of Rule 6(1)(c) of the Labour Court Rules. The court further determined that, given the interlocutory nature of the application and the absence of opposition, no costs order was warranted.

Court Disposition

Application granted. Leave to amend statement of claim is given.

Orders

  • The applicants are granted leave to amend their statement of case to include the schedule listing the documents that are material and relevant to the claim as per Rule 6(1)(c) of the Labour Court Rules.
  • There is no order as to costs.