Tulwana and Another v City of Johannesburg (JS 871/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 125 (14 June 2013)

Tulwana and Another v City of Johannesburg (JS 871/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 125 (14 June 2013)

The court exercised its judicial discretion to allow the amendment, finding that the applicants' claim regarding the alleged automatically unfair non-renewal of their employment contracts is a triable issue that warrants adjudication. The background agreements of 2006 and 2012 are secondary to the main cause of action. The court held that the amendment would not cause irreparable prejudice to the respondent, and any prejudice could be cured by a costs order. The requirements of law and fairness do not justify a costs order against either party.

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 125
Parties
Applicant: Alan Tulwana; Applicant: Robert Wiebosch; Respondent: City of Johannesburg
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 June 2013
Case Number
JS 871/11
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Amend Statement of Case
Outcome
Application to amend the statement of case granted; no order as to costs; trial postponed sine die.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Fixed Term Contracts, Collective Agreement Interpretation
Labour Law Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Automatically Unfair Dismissal Fixed Term Contracts Collective Agreement Interpretation

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Tulwana

Applicant

Robert Wiebosch

Applicant

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Amend Statement of Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend their statement of case to include allegations of automatically unfair dismissal and unfair dismissal based on non-renewal of fixed-term contracts.
  2. 2 Whether the amendment would render the applicants' claims excipiable or cause prejudice to the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction over the claims under section 186(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its judicial discretion to allow the amendment, finding that the applicants' claim regarding the alleged automatically unfair non-renewal of their employment contracts is a triable issue that warrants adjudication. The background agreements of 2006 and 2012 are secondary to the main cause of action. The court held that the amendment would not cause irreparable prejudice to the respondent, and any prejudice could be cured by a costs order. The requirements of law and fairness do not justify a costs order against either party.

Court Disposition

Application to amend the statement of case granted; no order as to costs; trial postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to amend the statement of case with no order as to costs.
  • The trial scheduled for 3 June 2013 is postponed sine die.