South African Municipal Workers Union v City of Johannesburg (J2426/06) [2007] ZALCJHB 82 (29 June 2007)

South African Municipal Workers Union v City of Johannesburg (J2426/06) [2007] ZALCJHB 82 (29 June 2007)

The court found that the applicant had no reasonable basis for launching the urgent application, persisting with it, and then withdrawing it at a late stage. The settlement agreement clearly resolved the dispute regarding the locomotion allowance, and the applicant's actions were unnecessary and avoidable. In both...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] ZALCJHB 82
Parties
Applicant: South African Municipal Workers Union; Respondent: City of Johannesburg
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2007
Case Number
J2426/06
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Application
Outcome
Application withdrawn; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Molahlehi AJ
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Proceedings, Costs Award, Urgent Interdict, Settlement Agreement, Unfair Labour Practice
Labour Law Civil Procedure Withdrawal of Proceedings Costs Award Urgent Interdict Settlement Agreement Unfair Labour Practice

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Municipal Workers Union

Applicant

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be ordered to pay the respondent's costs after withdrawing the urgent application.
  2. 2 Whether the principles of law and fairness require a costs order against the applicant in the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant had a reasonable basis for launching and persisting with the urgent application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had no reasonable basis for launching the urgent application, persisting with it, and then withdrawing it at a late stage. The settlement agreement clearly resolved the dispute regarding the locomotion allowance, and the applicant's actions were unnecessary and avoidable. In both law and fairness, the applicant was obliged to pay the respondent's costs incurred in defending the case.

Court Disposition

Application withdrawn; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the respondent on the party and party scale.