SISCO Printing CC and Another v Sinclair (D718/98) [1998] ZALC 70 (17 September 1998)

SISCO Printing CC and Another v Sinclair (D718/98) [1998] ZALC 70 (17 September 1998)

The Labour Court held that, in the absence of a specific rule regulating the status of judgments pending appeal, it must rely on its inherent powers, the common law, and comparable provisions in the High Court rules. Both the common law and rule 49(11) of the High Court rules provide for suspension of execution when an appeal is noted or an application for leave to appeal is filed. The court found that the order made by Landman J was suspended upon the filing of the application for leave to appeal. The application for relief against removal of attached goods was refused because the sheriff, who had a direct interest, was not joined as a respondent. However, the respondent was interdicted...

Citation
[1998] ZALC 70
Parties
Applicant: CISCO Printing CC; Applicant: Victor Fransico; Respondent: Andrew Sinclair
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 1998
Case Number
D718/98
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Pending Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application partially granted: relief against removal of attached goods refused; respondent interdicted from further execution pending leave to appeal; no order as to costs.
Judges
Maserumule
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Leave to Appeal, Arbitration Award Enforcement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Leave to Appeal Arbitration Award Enforcement

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

CISCO Printing CC

Applicant

Victor Fransico

Applicant

Andrew Sinclair

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Pending Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court should grant an urgent interdict to stay execution proceedings pending the outcome of an application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff should have been joined as a respondent in the application for relief against removal of attached goods.
  3. 3 Whether the common law or High Court rules regarding suspension of judgments pending appeal apply to Labour Court proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court held that, in the absence of a specific rule regulating the status of judgments pending appeal, it must rely on its inherent powers, the common law, and comparable provisions in the High Court rules. Both the common law and rule 49(11) of the High Court rules provide for suspension of execution when an appeal is noted or an application for leave to appeal is filed. The court found that the order made by Landman J was suspended upon the filing of the application for leave to appeal. The application for relief against removal of attached goods was refused because the sheriff, who had a direct interest, was not joined as a respondent. However, the respondent was interdicted...

Court Disposition

Application partially granted: relief against removal of attached goods refused; respondent interdicted from further execution pending leave to appeal; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The relief sought in paragraph 1(a) of the Notice of Application is refused.
  • The respondent is interdicted and restrained from instituting any further execution proceedings or taking any further steps in furtherance of execution proceedings already instituted pursuant to the order of Landman J granted under case number D416/98, pending the outcome of the applicants' application for leave to...