Veerasamy and Another v Calgro M3 Development Ltd (JS505/22) [2022] ZALCJHB 295 (24 October 2022)

Veerasamy and Another v Calgro M3 Development Ltd (JS505/22) [2022] ZALCJHB 295 (24 October 2022)

The court found that the applicants had already been retrenched when they sought relief, making interdictory relief inappropriate as it is not a remedy for past violations. The applicants had received the information they requested and had withdrawn from the consultation process, which led to their retrenchment. Any...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 295
Parties
Applicant: Ashika Veerasamy; Applicant: Amandla Maqokolo; Respondent: Calgro M3 Development Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 October 2022
Case Number
JS505/22
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Order of 27 May 2022.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Nkutha-Nkontwana
Legal Topics
Retrenchment, Interdictory Relief, Reinstatement, Condonation, Disclosure of Information
Labour Law Civil Procedure Retrenchment Interdictory Relief Reinstatement Condonation Disclosure of Information

Source-derived case record

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

Ashika Veerasamy

Applicant

Amandla Maqokolo

Applicant

Calgro M3 Development Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Order of 27 May 2022.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the refusal to interdict retrenchment pending a disclosure of information dispute.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the claim for reinstatement was erroneous.
  3. 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal has reasonable prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had already been retrenched when they sought relief, making interdictory relief inappropriate as it is not a remedy for past violations. The applicants had received the information they requested and had withdrawn from the consultation process, which led to their retrenchment. Any issues regarding non-disclosure could be addressed in proceedings challenging the fairness of the retrenchment. The court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different decision, and therefore, leave to appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.