Seloba v Premier, Limpopo and Another (J445/20) [2022] ZALCJHB 372 (8 December 2022)

Seloba v Premier, Limpopo and Another (J445/20) [2022] ZALCJHB 372 (8 December 2022)

The Court found that the respondents failed to satisfy the requirements for set-off, as their claim was based on untaxed bills of costs, which are not liquidated debts capable of prompt and speedy proof. The supplementary affidavit and new notice of motion filed by the respondents were not admitted, as no leave of the Court was sought and no satisfactory explanation was provided. The respondents were bound by their original papers, which rested on an unliquidated amount. Consequently, the counter-application was dismissed. The Court declined to make a cost order, considering the withdrawal of the main application and the need for closure between the parties.

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 372
Parties
Applicant: Phuti Phillemon Seloba; Respondent: The Premier, Limpopo; Respondent: The Director-General, Limpopo
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 December 2022
Case Number
J445/20
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Counter Application Following Withdrawal of Main Application
Outcome
Counter-application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Baloyi
Legal Topics
Set Off, Arbitration Award Enforcement, Filing of Further Affidavits, Costs Orders, Basic Conditions of Employment Act
Labour Law Civil Procedure Set Off Arbitration Award Enforcement Filing of Further Affidavits Costs Orders Basic Conditions of Employment Act

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phuti Phillemon Seloba

Applicant

The Premier, Limpopo

Respondent

The Director-General, Limpopo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Counter Application Following Withdrawal of Main Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were entitled to set off the arbitration award amount against untaxed bills of costs.
  2. 2 Whether the supplementary affidavit and new notice of motion filed by the respondents should be admitted without leave of the Court.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for set-off under common law and section 34 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act were satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the respondents failed to satisfy the requirements for set-off, as their claim was based on untaxed bills of costs, which are not liquidated debts capable of prompt and speedy proof. The supplementary affidavit and new notice of motion filed by the respondents were not admitted, as no leave of the Court was sought and no satisfactory explanation was provided. The respondents were bound by their original papers, which rested on an unliquidated amount. Consequently, the counter-application was dismissed. The Court declined to make a cost order, considering the withdrawal of the main application and the need for closure between the parties.

Court Disposition

Counter-application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The counter-application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.