Southernwind Shipyard (Pty) Ltd v Jacobs and Others (C 700/2008) [2008] ZALC 142; [2009] 4 BLLR 390 (LC) ; (2009) 30 ILJ 1369 (LC) (7 November 2008)

Southernwind Shipyard (Pty) Ltd v Jacobs and Others (C 700/2008) [2008] ZALC 142; [2009] 4 BLLR 390 (LC) ; (2009) 30 ILJ 1369 (LC) (7 November 2008)

The court held that an interim interdict that has been discharged cannot be revived by the noting of an appeal or by application for leave to appeal. The applicant's attempt to revive the discharged rule nisi was contrary to established legal principles and authorities. The proper procedure is to bring a fresh application for interim relief, which must be considered on its own merits. In this case, the applicant failed to meet the requirements for an interim interdict, including establishing a prima facie right and satisfying the notice requirements under section 68(2) of the Labour Relations Act. The demand for equal bonuses was not regulated by the Main Agreement, and the strike was...

Citation
[2008] ZALC 142
Parties
Applicant: Southernwind Shipyard (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: NUMSA; Respondent: B Jacobs & 173 Others
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 November 2008
Case Number
C700/2008
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Application to Confirm or Discharge Interim Interdict
Outcome
The rule nisi was discharged with costs; the application for revival of the interim interdict was refused.
Judges
G N Moshoana
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Strike Action, Collective Agreement, Section 68 Labour Relations Act, Balance of Convenience
Labour Law Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Strike Action Collective Agreement Section 68 Labour Relations Act Balance of Convenience

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Southernwind Shipyard (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

NUMSA

Respondent

B Jacobs & 173 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Application to Confirm or Discharge Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court can revive an interim interdict (rule nisi) that has been discharged.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for granting a further interim interdict pending leave to appeal or appeal have been met.
  3. 3 Whether the strike action by the respondents is protected under the Labour Relations Act given the nature of the dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that an interim interdict that has been discharged cannot be revived by the noting of an appeal or by application for leave to appeal. The applicant's attempt to revive the discharged rule nisi was contrary to established legal principles and authorities. The proper procedure is to bring a fresh application for interim relief, which must be considered on its own merits. In this case, the applicant failed to meet the requirements for an interim interdict, including establishing a prima facie right and satisfying the notice requirements under section 68(2) of the Labour Relations Act. The demand for equal bonuses was not regulated by the Main Agreement, and the strike was...

Court Disposition

The rule nisi was discharged with costs; the application for revival of the interim interdict was refused.

Orders

  • The rule nisi issued on 26 September 2008 is discharged with costs.
  • No interim interdict is granted pending leave to appeal or appeal.