Tshelane v Khoathane and Others (J353/2015) [2015] ZALCJHB 108 (25 February 2015)

Tshelane v Khoathane and Others (J353/2015) [2015] ZALCJHB 108 (25 February 2015)

The application was withdrawn by the applicant before argument. The respondents, having been brought to court on extremely short notice and having properly authorised their opposition via e-mail correspondence in accordance with section 74 of the Companies Act, were entitled to have their costs paid by the applicant. The court found no basis for the application and no procedural defect in the respondents' authority to oppose. The applicant's conduct in launching the urgent application and withdrawing it at the last minute justified a punitive costs order, including the costs of two counsel.

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 108
Parties
Applicant: Goodluck Phumzile Tshelane; Respondent: Mmeg Khoathane; Respondent: N Shaik-Peremanov; Respondent: N J Mxakato-Diseko / J Kellerman; Respondent: M M Mokuena; Respondent: J Keshaw / Z Zibi; Respondent: South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (SOC) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 February 2015
Case Number
J353/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application Withdrawn Before Hearing; Costs Determined
Outcome
Application withdrawn; costs awarded against applicant.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Board Resolution Authority, Urgent Interdict, Costs Order, Suspension of Executive
Labour Law Civil Procedure Board Resolution Authority Urgent Interdict Costs Order Suspension of Executive

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goodluck Phumzile Tshelane

Applicant

Mmeg Khoathane

Respondent

N Shaik-Peremanov

Respondent

N J Mxakato-Diseko / J Kellerman

Respondent

M M Mokuena

Respondent

J Keshaw / Z Zibi

Respondent

South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (SOC) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application Withdrawn Before Hearing; Costs Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board of NECSA and/or its sub-committees were legally constituted and authorised to suspend the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's urgent application to set aside the suspension and Board decisions was procedurally and substantively justified.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents were properly authorised to oppose the application and depose to affidavits on behalf of NECSA.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was withdrawn by the applicant before argument. The respondents, having been brought to court on extremely short notice and having properly authorised their opposition via e-mail correspondence in accordance with section 74 of the Companies Act, were entitled to have their costs paid by the applicant. The court found no basis for the application and no procedural defect in the respondents' authority to oppose. The applicant's conduct in launching the urgent application and withdrawing it at the last minute justified a punitive costs order, including the costs of two counsel.

Court Disposition

Application withdrawn; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • The application is withdrawn.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondents' costs, including the costs of two counsel.