Tshabalala v ADT Security (Pty) Ltd (J1087/07) [2007] ZALC 179 (25 July 2007)

Tshabalala v ADT Security (Pty) Ltd (J1087/07) [2007] ZALC 179 (25 July 2007)

The Court found that the deponent to the founding affidavit was duly authorised, as stated in the papers, and the respondents failed to provide evidence to the contrary. Urgency was properly addressed at the time the Rule nisi was granted, and there was no requirement to prove urgency again at the return date, as the Rule nisi had already addressed the urgent circumstances. The costs order was within the Court's discretion, especially as the matter was opposed. The arbitration award issued by the CCMA remains an award and is not a court order until made so under Section 158(1)(c); therefore, it is reviewable and capable of being stayed. The application for leave to appeal lacked merit and...

Citation
[2007] ZALC 179
Parties
Applicant: James Tshabalala; Respondent: ADT Security (Pty) Limited
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 July 2007
Case Number
J1087/07
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Stay of Enforcement, Arbitration Award Review, Authority to Depose, Urgency in Applications, Costs Order
Labour Law Stay of Enforcement Arbitration Award Review Authority to Depose Urgency in Applications Costs Order

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Tshabalala

Applicant

ADT Security (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deponent to the founding affidavit had authority to depose to the affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether urgency was established at the return date of the Rule nisi.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court erred in granting costs against the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the deponent to the founding affidavit was duly authorised, as stated in the papers, and the respondents failed to provide evidence to the contrary. Urgency was properly addressed at the time the Rule nisi was granted, and there was no requirement to prove urgency again at the return date, as the Rule nisi had already addressed the urgent circumstances. The costs order was within the Court's discretion, especially as the matter was opposed. The arbitration award issued by the CCMA remains an award and is not a court order until made so under Section 158(1)(c); therefore, it is reviewable and capable of being stayed. The application for leave to appeal lacked merit and...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.