Solidarity and Others v South African National Blood Services (J 2450/12) [2012] ZALCJHB 102 (25 September 2012)

Solidarity and Others v South African National Blood Services (J 2450/12) [2012] ZALCJHB 102 (25 September 2012)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency. Despite being aware of the respondent's employment equity strategy and the exclusionary nature of the advertisements, the applicants did not act promptly or provide a satisfactory explanation for their delay in bringing the application. The court held that any urgency that may have existed arose at the time of the roadshow and publication of the advertisements, not after the closure of applications. Furthermore, the applicants did not demonstrate the absence of an alternative remedy. As a result, the application was struck off the roll for want of urgency, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Citation
[2012] ZALCJHB 102
Parties
Applicant: Solidarity; Applicant: Theodore Reyneke; Applicant: Sanet Schonveldt; Respondent: South African National Blood Service
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 September 2012
Case Number
J 2450/12
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Interdict
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for want of urgency; costs awarded against applicants.
Judges
D H Gush
Legal Topics
Employment Equity, Urgent Interdict, Affirmative Action, Discrimination, Alternative Remedy
Labour Law Civil Procedure Employment Equity Urgent Interdict Affirmative Action Discrimination Alternative Remedy

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

Solidarity

Applicant

Theodore Reyneke

Applicant

Sanet Schonveldt

Applicant

South African National Blood Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for interim relief is urgent and should be heard as such.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient explanation for the delay in bringing the application.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have established the absence of an alternative remedy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency. Despite being aware of the respondent's employment equity strategy and the exclusionary nature of the advertisements, the applicants did not act promptly or provide a satisfactory explanation for their delay in bringing the application. The court held that any urgency that may have existed arose at the time of the roadshow and publication of the advertisements, not after the closure of applications. Furthermore, the applicants did not demonstrate the absence of an alternative remedy. As a result, the application was struck off the roll for want of urgency, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for want of urgency; costs awarded against applicants.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll for want of urgency.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the respondent's costs, the one to pay the others to be absolved.