Tasima (Pty) Ltd v Road Traffic Management Corporation and Others (J890/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 266 (13 July 2017)

Tasima (Pty) Ltd v Road Traffic Management Corporation and Others (J890/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 266 (13 July 2017)

The court found that the first respondent failed to comply with the Steenkamp J order regarding payment of April 2017 salaries to the transferred employees. Although the applicant paid the salaries, it was entitled to reimbursement from the first respondent. The application for payment of May 2017 salaries was premature, as payment was made before the due date. The court declared the first respondent in contempt of the Steenkamp J order in respect of the April salaries and ordered payment to the applicant within five days. Costs of the counter-application were awarded against the first respondent, while each party was ordered to pay its own costs in respect of the main application, except...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 266
Parties
Applicant: Tasima (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Road Traffic Management Corporation; Respondent: Department of Transport; Respondent: Director General: Department of Transport; Respondent: Minister of Transport; Respondent: Employees listed in Annex “A”
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 July 2017
Case Number
J890/17
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Contempt and Enforcement of Prior Order
Outcome
The application succeeded in part. The first respondent was declared in contempt regarding April 2017 salaries and ordered to pay the applicant. Costs of the counter-application were awarded against the first respondent.
Judges
Rabkin-Naicker
Legal Topics
Section 197 Transfer, Contempt of Court, Urgent Interdict, Employment Contracts, Costs Orders
Labour Law Civil Procedure Section 197 Transfer Contempt of Court Urgent Interdict Employment Contracts Costs Orders

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tasima (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Road Traffic Management Corporation

Respondent

Department of Transport

Respondent

Director General: Department of Transport

Respondent

Minister of Transport

Respondent

Employees listed in Annex “A”

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Contempt and Enforcement of Prior Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent is in contempt of the Steenkamp J order regarding payment of April 2017 salaries.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to urgent relief for reimbursement of April 2017 salaries paid to employees.
  3. 3 Whether the application for payment of May 2017 salaries was premature.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent failed to comply with the Steenkamp J order regarding payment of April 2017 salaries to the transferred employees. Although the applicant paid the salaries, it was entitled to reimbursement from the first respondent. The application for payment of May 2017 salaries was premature, as payment was made before the due date. The court declared the first respondent in contempt of the Steenkamp J order in respect of the April salaries and ordered payment to the applicant within five days. Costs of the counter-application were awarded against the first respondent, while each party was ordered to pay its own costs in respect of the main application, except...

Court Disposition

The application succeeded in part. The first respondent was declared in contempt regarding April 2017 salaries and ordered to pay the applicant. Costs of the counter-application were awarded against the first respondent.

Orders

  • The first respondent is to make payment to the applicant of R3,208,307.91 in respect of the April 2017 salaries within 5 days of this order and file notice with the Registrar of the Labour Court.
  • The first respondent is to pay the costs of the counter-application, including costs of two counsel.