Vorster v EE TSA (Proprietary) Limited (J4648/99) [2006] ZALC 80; (2006) 27 ILJ 2439 (LC) (19 July 2006)

Vorster v EE TSA (Proprietary) Limited (J4648/99) [2006] ZALC 80; (2006) 27 ILJ 2439 (LC) (19 July 2006)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for his default in not filing an answering affidavit to the section 158(1)(c) application. The applicant's conduct was grossly negligent and demonstrated a disregard for the rules of court, as he did not prosecute the review application nor properly raise the defence of prescription in the required manner. The court held that prescription must be invoked in the relevant documents, such as an answering affidavit, and cannot be considered mero motu by the court. Since the applicant did not raise prescription in an answering affidavit, he had no bona fide defence with prospects of success. The delay...

Citation
[2006] ZALC 80
Parties
Applicant: Vorster T P; Respondent: E. E. T SA (Proprietary) Limited
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 July 2006
Case Number
J4648/99
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment Granted in Section 158(1)(c) Proceedings
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mokgoatlheng
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Prescription, Section 158 1 C Application, Default Judgment, Good Cause Requirement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Prescription Section 158 1 C Application Default Judgment Good Cause Requirement

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vorster T P

Applicant

E. E. T SA (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment Granted in Section 158(1)(c) Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for rescission of the default judgment granted in terms of section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a bona fide defence with prospects of success, specifically prescription of the arbitration award.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's failure to file an answering affidavit was wilful or grossly negligent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for his default in not filing an answering affidavit to the section 158(1)(c) application. The applicant's conduct was grossly negligent and demonstrated a disregard for the rules of court, as he did not prosecute the review application nor properly raise the defence of prescription in the required manner. The court held that prescription must be invoked in the relevant documents, such as an answering affidavit, and cannot be considered mero motu by the court. Since the applicant did not raise prescription in an answering affidavit, he had no bona fide defence with prospects of success. The delay...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs.

Orders

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