Teffo v Small Enterprise Development Agency (J877/18) [2018] ZALCJHB 123 (22 March 2018)

Teffo v Small Enterprise Development Agency (J877/18) [2018] ZALCJHB 123 (22 March 2018)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying urgent intervention. The urgency claimed was self-created due to her delay in approaching the court and failure to act promptly. The applicant did not adequately set out reasons for urgency or why substantial redress could not be obtained in due course. The withholding of remuneration was justified under the Agency's leave policy, as the applicant had exhausted her leave and failed to report for duty. No unlawful deductions were made under section 34 of the BCEA. The application was ill-conceived and amounted to an abuse of process, given the availability of alternative remedies and the...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 123
Parties
Applicant: Tlalane Elizabeth Teffo; Respondent: Small Enterprise Development Agency
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 March 2018
Case Number
J877/18
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Off Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency. No order as to costs.
Judges
E. Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Urgent Application, Remuneration Withholding, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Leave Policy, Financial Hardship
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgent Application Remuneration Withholding Basic Conditions of Employment Act Leave Policy Financial Hardship

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tlalane Elizabeth Teffo

Applicant

Small Enterprise Development Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike Off Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's urgent application meets the requirements for urgency under Rule 8 of the Labour Court Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the withholding of the applicant's remuneration by the respondent constitutes unlawful conduct under section 34 of the BCEA.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying urgent intervention.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying urgent intervention. The urgency claimed was self-created due to her delay in approaching the court and failure to act promptly. The applicant did not adequately set out reasons for urgency or why substantial redress could not be obtained in due course. The withholding of remuneration was justified under the Agency's leave policy, as the applicant had exhausted her leave and failed to report for duty. No unlawful deductions were made under section 34 of the BCEA. The application was ill-conceived and amounted to an abuse of process, given the availability of alternative remedies and the...

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicant’s urgent application is struck off the roll for lack of urgency.
  • There is no order as to costs.