Unicab Taxis (Pty) Ltd v Kammies (C146/97) [2000] ZALC 150 (25 August 2000)

Unicab Taxis (Pty) Ltd v Kammies (C146/97) [2000] ZALC 150 (25 August 2000)

The applicant, as successor to Unicab Taxis, inherited all rights and obligations under the settlement agreement and the court order. Mullins, as fleet manager, had ostensible authority to bind Unicab Taxis in the CCMA proceedings, and the respondent was entitled to rely on this representation. The applicant failed to prove that Mullins' mistake regarding jurisdiction was reasonable or that the respondent knew or ought to have known of the mistake. The grounds for rescission under section 165 of the Labour Relations Act were not met, as the order was not erroneously sought or granted, nor was there ambiguity or a common mistake. The application for rescission was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2000] ZALC 150
Parties
Applicant: Unicab Taxis (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Andries Kammies
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 August 2000
Case Number
C146/97
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application to Rescind a Prior Court Order Under Section 165 of the Labour Relations Act.
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Faber
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Settlement Agreement, Locus Standi, Authority of Agent, Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Settlement Agreement Locus Standi Authority of Agent Unfair Dismissal

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unicab Taxis (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Andries Kammies

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application to Rescind a Prior Court Order Under Section 165 of the Labour Relations Act.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has locus standi to apply for rescission of the order.
  2. 2 Whether the settlement agreement was binding on the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the order was erroneously granted or should be rescinded under section 165 of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant, as successor to Unicab Taxis, inherited all rights and obligations under the settlement agreement and the court order. Mullins, as fleet manager, had ostensible authority to bind Unicab Taxis in the CCMA proceedings, and the respondent was entitled to rely on this representation. The applicant failed to prove that Mullins' mistake regarding jurisdiction was reasonable or that the respondent knew or ought to have known of the mistake. The grounds for rescission under section 165 of the Labour Relations Act were not met, as the order was not erroneously sought or granted, nor was there ambiguity or a common mistake. The application for rescission was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission of the order is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.