Tembisa Pretoria Taxi Association v SATAWU obo Motlatjo (JS674/11) [2014] ZALCJHB 481 (2 December 2014)
The court found that the applicant's rescission application was filed outside the prescribed time period and no condonation application was made. The absence of the applicant's attorney was not a justifiable reason for postponement, especially as the applicant had sufficient time to secure alternative...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] ZALCJHB 481
- Parties
- Applicant: Tembisa Pretoria Taxi Association; Respondent: SATAWU obo Pheeha, Martha Motlatjo
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- JS674/11
- Procedural Posture
- Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of a Previous Court Order; Hearing on Postponement and Condonation.
- Outcome
- Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Bleazard
- Legal Topics
- Rescission of Judgment, Condonation, Court Rules, Costs Order
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tembisa Pretoria Taxi Association
Applicant
SATAWU obo Pheeha, Martha Motlatjo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of a Previous Court Order; Hearing on Postponement and Condonation.
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's rescission application was validly before the court given the delay and absence of a condonation application.
- 2 Whether the absence of the applicant's attorney justified a postponement of the hearing.
- 3 Whether the respondent would suffer prejudice if the matter was postponed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's rescission application was filed outside the prescribed time period and no condonation application was made. The absence of the applicant's attorney was not a justifiable reason for postponement, especially as the applicant had sufficient time to secure alternative representation. The respondent would be prejudiced by further delay, as the original order had already been granted in her favour. The court concluded that there was no valid rescission application before it and dismissed the application with costs.
Court Disposition
Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The applicant's application to rescind the order of court dated 14 November 2012 is dismissed.
- The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Case no: JS674/11
DATE: 02 DECEMBER 2014
Not Reportable
In the matter between:
TEMBISA PRETORIA TAXI ASSOCIATION.....................................Applicant
And
SATAWU obo PHEEHA, MARTHA MOTLATJO............................Respondent
Heard: 11 July 2014
Delivered: 2 December 2014
Summary: This is an Application for Rescission of a Court Order by Boqwana A.J. of 14 November 2012. Postponement sought by Applicant was refused. Application for Rescission out of time – no Condonation Application. Rescission Application refused.
JUDGMENT – RESCISSION APPLICATION
BLEAZARD, AJ
[1] This is an application for rescission of the court order made by Acting Judge Boqwana on 14 November 2012.
[2] At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Mkhomazi, a representative of the Applicant in the rescission application (Respondent in the main application) sought a postponement of the matter on the basis that the Applicant’s attorney was engaged in another matter in another Court. No affidavit was filed in support of the application for a postponement and no letter or any other document was filed by the Applicant’s attorney setting out the basis for any postponement of the application.
[3] Mr Mabaso, who appeared on behalf of the Respondent, opposed the application for the postponement.
[4] The absence of the Applicant’s attorney (particularly as the Applicant had ample time to secure the services of another attorney), was not a justifiable reason to postpone the application. Also, the prejudice to the Respondent of having the matter postponed is manifest. The order of this Honourable Court was granted in her favour, as stated above, on 14 November, 2012. I, accordingly, refused the application for a postponement of the rescission application.
[5] The Applicant then sought to provide me with documents in support of the application for the rescission application. Mr Mabaso, on behalf of the Respondent in this application, raised the preliminary point that, in the absence of an application for condonation, there was no valid rescission application before me.
[6] In this regard, he argued that an application for the rescission of an order of judgment of this Honourable Court under Rule 16A(1)(b) of the Rules of this Honourable Court must be brought within 15 days of the party affected hereby acquiring knowledge of an order of judgment.
[7] In paragraph 3 of its application for rescission, the Applicant states the following:
‘Take further note that the Applicant become [sic] aware of the Court Order on the 04th February, 2013, and if the Order is rescinded the Applicant prays that the Honourable Court issue a cost order against the Respondent’s.’
Although the notice of motion in support of the rescission application is dated ‘05 February 2013’ and the founding affidavit is dated ‘22 February 2013’, the date stamp of this Honourable Court reflects that the rescission application was filed in this Honourable Court on 27 March 2013, well outside the time period provided for in Rule 16A (2)(d) of the Rules of this Court.
[8] I might add that the Respondent points out in her Answering Affidavit that the Rescission Application was not served on her attorneys before it was filed at Court and that her attorneys only became aware of the Applicant’s rescission application on 18 June 2013 after the Sheriff had attended at the offices of the Applicant to uplift the goods attached in satisfaction of the order granted by this Court.
[9] I am, therefore, satisfied that the application for rescission as it stands is defective and that there is no valid application before me. I might add that, at the hearing, Mr Mkhomazi conceded that the Applicant had, indeed, received the Applicant’s statement of case in the main application. In fact, he signed for it personally on 16 August 2011.
[10] In the circumstances, I make the following order:
10.1. The Applicant’s Application to Rescind the Order of Court dated 14 November 2012 is dismissed.
10.2. The Applicant is to pay the Respondent’s costs.
Bleazard, AJ
Acting Judge of the Labour Court
Appearances:
For the Applicant: In Person
Instructed by:
For the Respondent: Mabaso Attorneys