Toshika Retail Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Inqubela Phambili Trade Union (J1694/13) [2014] ZALCJHB 347 (5 September 2014)

Toshika Retail Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Inqubela Phambili Trade Union (J1694/13) [2014] ZALCJHB 347 (5 September 2014)

The court found that the applicant's claim for a final interdict was based on hearsay evidence, which was not substantiated by affidavits from employees or third parties present at the alleged incident. The applicant failed to lay a proper basis for the admission of hearsay evidence. Furthermore, the alleged unlawful conduct had already occurred prior to the institution of proceedings, rendering the interdict inappropriate as a remedy for past invasions of rights. The applicant also withdrew its claim for defamation during argument. Consequently, the application for a final interdict was dismissed.

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 347
Parties
Applicant: Toshika Retail Solutions (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Inqubela Phambili Trade Union
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 September 2014
Case Number
J1694/13
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application; Unopposed
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Organisational Rights, Final Interdict, Hearsay Evidence, Access to Workplace
Labour Law Civil Procedure Organisational Rights Final Interdict Hearsay Evidence Access to Workplace

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Toshika Retail Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Inqubela Phambili Trade Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application; Unopposed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent unlawfully entered the applicant's workplace and addressed employees during working hours without permission.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a final interdict based on hearsay evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the alleged conduct by the respondent justifies the granting of a final interdict.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's claim for a final interdict was based on hearsay evidence, which was not substantiated by affidavits from employees or third parties present at the alleged incident. The applicant failed to lay a proper basis for the admission of hearsay evidence. Furthermore, the alleged unlawful conduct had already occurred prior to the institution of proceedings, rendering the interdict inappropriate as a remedy for past invasions of rights. The applicant also withdrew its claim for defamation during argument. Consequently, the application for a final interdict was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant's application is dismissed with no order as to costs.