Tshabalala v ADT Security (Pty) Ltd (J1087/07) [2007] ZALCJHB 67 (25 July 2007)

Tshabalala v ADT Security (Pty) Ltd (J1087/07) [2007] ZALCJHB 67 (25 July 2007)

The court found that the deponent to the founding affidavit had made a clear averment of authority to launch the application and depose to the affidavit, and there was no evidence to gainsay this. The urgency was properly addressed by the initial grant of the Rule nisi, and it was not necessary to prove urgency again at the return date. The Labour Court has discretion to grant costs where the matter is opposed, and the order for costs against the respondents was justified. The arbitration award, although certified, remains reviewable and is not equivalent to a court order until made so under Section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act. The application for leave to appeal lacked merit...

Citation
[2007] ZALCJHB 67
Parties
Applicant: James Tshabalala; Respondent: ADT Security (Pty) Limited
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
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 AJ
Legal Topics
Stay of Enforcement, Arbitration Award Review, Urgency in Labour Applications, Costs Orders, Authority to Depose
Labour Law Stay of Enforcement Arbitration Award Review Urgency in Labour Applications Costs Orders Authority to Depose

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 properly established at the return date of the Rule nisi.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court erred in granting costs against the 3rd and 4th respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the deponent to the founding affidavit had made a clear averment of authority to launch the application and depose to the affidavit, and there was no evidence to gainsay this. The urgency was properly addressed by the initial grant of the Rule nisi, and it was not necessary to prove urgency again at the return date. The Labour Court has discretion to grant costs where the matter is opposed, and the order for costs against the respondents was justified. The arbitration award, although certified, remains reviewable and is not equivalent to a court order until made so under Section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act. The application for leave to appeal lacked merit...

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.