Skhosansa and Others v Smollan Sales and Marketing (Pty) Ltd t/a Mondelez Field Services (J 1146/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 225 (31 October 2020)

Skhosansa and Others v Smollan Sales and Marketing (Pty) Ltd t/a Mondelez Field Services (J 1146/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 225 (31 October 2020)

The Court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 8 of the Labour Court Rules, given the significant delay between the alleged transfer and the application for relief. The pleadings were incoherent and did not set out a valid cause of action. Furthermore, the applicants failed to join necessary parties, such as the relevant pension funds, and their complaints regarding pension fund administration should be addressed to the Pension Fund Adjudicator. The Court concluded that the application was defective, ill-conceived, and frivolous, and dismissed it without a costs order, considering the applicants' financial circumstances.

Citation
[2020] ZALCJHB 225
Parties
Applicant: Sipho Skhosana; Applicant: Godfrey Nakana; Applicant: The persons listed in Annexure “A”; Respondent: Smollan Sales and Marketing (Pty) Ltd t/a Mondelez Field Services
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 October 2020
Case Number
J 1146/20
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Before the Labour Court
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
E Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Section 197 Transfer, Pension Fund Compliance, Urgent Application Requirements, Material Non Joinder
Labour Law Civil Procedure Section 197 Transfer Pension Fund Compliance Urgent Application Requirements Material Non Joinder

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sipho Skhosana

Applicant

Godfrey Nakana

Applicant

The persons listed in Annexure “A”

Applicant

Smollan Sales and Marketing (Pty) Ltd t/a Mondelez Field Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Before the Labour Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants established grounds for urgent relief under Rule 8 of the Labour Court Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent breached section 197 of the Labour Relations Act regarding transfer of business and pension funds.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' complaints regarding pension fund administration and meetings fall within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 8 of the Labour Court Rules, given the significant delay between the alleged transfer and the application for relief. The pleadings were incoherent and did not set out a valid cause of action. Furthermore, the applicants failed to join necessary parties, such as the relevant pension funds, and their complaints regarding pension fund administration should be addressed to the Pension Fund Adjudicator. The Court concluded that the application was defective, ill-conceived, and frivolous, and dismissed it without a costs order, considering the applicants' financial circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicants’ urgent application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.