UNTU and Another v PRASA and Others (J204/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 104 (16 February 2018)

UNTU and Another v PRASA and Others (J204/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 104 (16 February 2018)

The application for contempt is dismissed because the settlement agreement incorporated into the court order contains a dispute resolution mechanism that the applicants should have used. The agreement does not impose enforceable obligations suitable for contempt proceedings, as compliance is left to the discretion of the parties. Even if these preliminary points were incorrect, the applicants failed to specify which issues PRASA allegedly did not comply with, and PRASA provided detailed evidence of compliance. The applicants did not meet the threshold for contempt as set out in Fakie. The union also failed to act in good faith and did not disclose all relevant information. Given these...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 104
Parties
Applicant: UNTU; Applicant: SATAWU; Respondent: PRASA; Respondent: Lindikaya Zide; Respondent: Pearl Munthali
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 February 2018
Case Number
J204/17
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Settlement Agreement, Dispute Resolution Mechanism, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Settlement Agreement Dispute Resolution Mechanism Costs Award

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UNTU

Applicant

SATAWU

Applicant

PRASA

Respondent

Lindikaya Zide

Respondent

Pearl Munthali

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PRASA and its officials are in contempt of the court order making the settlement agreement an order of court.
  2. 2 Whether the settlement agreement is enforceable through contempt proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the union should have used the dispute resolution mechanism provided in the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for contempt is dismissed because the settlement agreement incorporated into the court order contains a dispute resolution mechanism that the applicants should have used. The agreement does not impose enforceable obligations suitable for contempt proceedings, as compliance is left to the discretion of the parties. Even if these preliminary points were incorrect, the applicants failed to specify which issues PRASA allegedly did not comply with, and PRASA provided detailed evidence of compliance. The applicants did not meet the threshold for contempt as set out in Fakie. The union also failed to act in good faith and did not disclose all relevant information. Given these...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.