Songelwa v Bongithole Security Services and Others (P41/21) [2022] ZALCPE 13 (29 June 2022)

Songelwa v Bongithole Security Services and Others (P41/21) [2022] ZALCPE 13 (29 June 2022)

The applicant failed to prove that the respondents did not comply with the certified arbitration award. The evidence showed that the monetary portion was paid and the applicant returned to work as ordered. The applicant's subsequent departure due to alleged poor treatment constituted a separate dispute and could not be relied upon for the contempt application. The rule nisi was discharged, and no costs order was made as fairness did not justify such an order, given the circumstances surrounding the applicant's departure.

Citation
[2022] ZALCPE 13
Parties
Applicant: Bongile Thomas Songelwa; Respondent: Bongithole Security Services; Respondent: Director(s) of Bongithole Security Services N.O; Respondent: Mandla Mbambo N.O
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2022
Case Number
P41/21
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; rule nisi discharged; no order as to costs.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Certified Arbitration Award, Unfair Labour Practice, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Certified Arbitration Award Unfair Labour Practice Costs Order

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bongile Thomas Songelwa

Applicant

Bongithole Security Services

Respondent

Director(s) of Bongithole Security Services N.O

Respondent

Mandla Mbambo N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents failed to comply with the certified arbitration award.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are in contempt of court for non-compliance with the award.
  3. 3 Whether a costs order should be granted against the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove that the respondents did not comply with the certified arbitration award. The evidence showed that the monetary portion was paid and the applicant returned to work as ordered. The applicant's subsequent departure due to alleged poor treatment constituted a separate dispute and could not be relied upon for the contempt application. The rule nisi was discharged, and no costs order was made as fairness did not justify such an order, given the circumstances surrounding the applicant's departure.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; rule nisi discharged; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The rule nisi issued out of this court on 6 August 2021 is discharged.
  • There is no order as to costs.