Semela and Another v Gauteng Department of Economic Development and Others (J590/21) [2023] ZALCJHB 284 (17 October 2023)

Semela and Another v Gauteng Department of Economic Development and Others (J590/21) [2023] ZALCJHB 284 (17 October 2023)

The court found that the applicants were not entitled to revive the rule nisi that had been discharged by agreement between the parties and under different circumstances. The relief sought was not to find the respondents guilty of contempt, but to revive the previous contempt application, which was procedurally incorrect. The applicants failed to launch a fresh contempt of court application against the current respondents for alleged non-compliance with the Mkwibiso AJ order. The circumstances required a new application, not a revival of the discharged rule nisi. The court held that the requirements for revival as set out in VLG Accounting were not met, as the rule nisi was discharged by...

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 284
Parties
Applicant: Malefu Semela; Applicant: Patrick Lesejane; Respondent: Gauteng Department of Economic Development; Respondent: Blake Mosley Lefatola; Respondent: Cleo Bodibe-Lushaba
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 October 2023
Case Number
J590/21
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Reasons for Order Following Discharge of Rule Nisi
Outcome
Application to revive the rule nisi dismissed.
Judges
M T M Phehane
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Arbitration Award Enforcement, Rule Nisi, Revival of Proceedings
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Arbitration Award Enforcement Rule Nisi Revival of Proceedings

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malefu Semela

Applicant

Patrick Lesejane

Applicant

Gauteng Department of Economic Development

Respondent

Blake Mosley Lefatola

Respondent

Cleo Bodibe-Lushaba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Reasons for Order Following Discharge of Rule Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to revive a rule nisi that was discharged by agreement between the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are in contempt of court for alleged non-compliance with the arbitration award and previous court order.
  3. 3 Whether the correct procedure was followed in seeking relief for alleged non-compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were not entitled to revive the rule nisi that had been discharged by agreement between the parties and under different circumstances. The relief sought was not to find the respondents guilty of contempt, but to revive the previous contempt application, which was procedurally incorrect. The applicants failed to launch a fresh contempt of court application against the current respondents for alleged non-compliance with the Mkwibiso AJ order. The circumstances required a new application, not a revival of the discharged rule nisi. The court held that the requirements for revival as set out in VLG Accounting were not met, as the rule nisi was discharged by...

Court Disposition

Application to revive the rule nisi dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to revive the rule nisi is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.