Sheriff for the High Court for the District of Wynberg North v RPL Assessment Centre (Pty) Ltd and Others (C519/16) [2017] ZALCCT 4 (3 February 2017)
The court found that the Second Claimant, Pieter Barend Swart, failed to appear on two occasions and did not send a legal representative or file an application for postponement. In terms of Rule 58(5) of the Uniform Rules of Court, such failure entitles the court to bar the absent party from making any claim against...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] ZALCCT 4
- Parties
- Applicant: Sheriff for the High Court for the District of Wynberg North; Respondent: RPL Assessment Centre (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Annetjie Debora Oosthuizen; Applicant: Pieter Barend Swart
- Court
- Labour Court Cape Town
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- C519/16
- Procedural Posture
- Interpleader Application / Final Determination
- Outcome
- Second Claimant barred from making any claim against the Applicant regarding the subject matter of the interpleader proceedings.
- Judges
- Rabkin-Naicker
- Legal Topics
- Interpleader Proceedings, Warrant of Execution, Settlement Agreement, Arbitration Award
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sheriff for the High Court for the District of Wynberg North
Applicant
RPL Assessment Centre (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Annetjie Debora Oosthuizen
Applicant
Pieter Barend Swart
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Interpleader Application / Final Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Second Claimant is entitled to make any claim against the Applicant regarding the attached property.
- 2 Whether the failure of the Second Claimant to appear in court bars him from asserting rights in the interpleader proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Second Claimant, Pieter Barend Swart, failed to appear on two occasions and did not send a legal representative or file an application for postponement. In terms of Rule 58(5) of the Uniform Rules of Court, such failure entitles the court to bar the absent party from making any claim against the applicant concerning the subject matter of the interpleader proceedings. The court accordingly barred the Second Claimant from asserting any rights in relation to the attached property.
Court Disposition
Second Claimant barred from making any claim against the Applicant regarding the subject matter of the interpleader proceedings.
Orders
- Pieter Barend Swart, the Second Claimant, is barred as against the Applicant from making any claim on the subject matter of the interpleader proceedings.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
JUDGMENT
NOT reportable
Case no: C519/16
In the matter between:
SHERIFF FOR THE HIGH COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYNBERG NORTH
Applicant
and
RPL ASSESSMENT CENTRE (PTY) LTD
Execution Debtor
ANNETJIE DEBORA OOSTHUIZEN Execution
Creditor/ First Claimant
PIETER BAREND SWART
Second Claimant
Heard: 25/11/2016
Delivered: 3 February 2017
RABKIN-NAICKER J
[1] This interpleader was first set down on the 14 October 2016 but was postponed as the Second Claimant informed the Applicant he was suffering from ill-health. It was then set down to be heard on the 25 November 2016. On the 16 November, a letter was received from the First Claimant’s dental surgeon stating that he would not be able to travel for the rest of the year. No application for postponement was filed.
[2] The Second Claimant was in court having driven to Cape Town from Knysna for the hearing. She filed an affidavit with leave of the court on that day with the pro-bono assistance of Counsel.
[3] The matter comes before me in the wake of an interpleader summons in which the Applicant stated that movable property had been attached by virtue of a Warrant of Execution – Case no: WECT10689/15 issued by the labour Court. The items attached in terms of the warrant were in respect of a settlement agreement that was made an arbitration award in terms of section 142A(1) of the LRA. The settlement agreement was to the effect that the Respondent pay the first claimant amount of R11 7000 by no later than 30 September 2015.
[4] I note in the affidavit filed of record by the First Claimant that she alleges that after the settlement agreement was signed by the parties at the CCMA, the Second Claimant shouted down the passage to her that she would not get a cent from him. Be that as it may, this is a matter in which the Second Claimant has failed to appear at court on two occasions and has not bothered to send a legal representative to represent him.
[5] It is trite that the Labour Court deals with interpleader applications in terms of Rule 11 of this court, i.e. it does so with reliance on the provisions of Rule 58 of the Uniform Rules of Court. Rule 58(5) provides that where a party such as Second Claimant fails to appear in court he may be barred from making any claim against the applicant on the subject matter of the dispute. I therefore make the following order:
Order
1. Pieter Barend Swardt, the Second Claimant is barred as against the Applicant from making any claim on the subject matter of the
interpleader proceedings.
__________________
H. Rabkin-Naicker
Judge of the Labour Court
Appearances:
First Claimant in person