Western Cape Workers Association v Hazeley Piggeries (C263/98) [1998] ZALC 123 (3 December 1998)
- Citation
- [1998] ZALC 123
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court
- Panel
- A A Landman
- Case number
- C263/98
More details
- Court
- Labour Court
- Panel
- A A Landman
- Case number
- C263/98
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that, although the application for leave to appeal was filed out of time, the circumstances—including the reasonable prospects of success regarding the costs order—justified condonation. The costs order in the main action was not restricted to those respondents against whom the rule had been issued and confirmed, and should not have been awarded against the first respondent. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted and costs were ordered to be costs in the appeal.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal is granted; costs are to be costs in the appeal.
Orders
- The late application for leave to appeal is condoned.
- Leave to appeal is granted.
- Costs are to be costs in the appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
Western Cape Workers Association
ApplicantHazeley Piggeries
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Interim Interdict Proceedings
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
- 02
Whether costs were correctly awarded against the first respondent, who was not subject to the confirmed rule.
- 03
Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the costs order.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the costs order, arguing that costs should not have been awarded against it as it was not subject to the confirmed rule. The applicant also requests condonation for the late filing of the application, citing reasonable prospects of success.
- Respondent
- The respondent opposes the application for leave to appeal and condonation, contending that the costs order was properly made and that the application is out of time without sufficient justification.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Labour Court practice
Condonation for late filing may be granted where there are reasonable prospects of success and the circumstances justify it.
- 02
Labour Court jurisprudence
Costs should only be awarded against parties who are subject to the operative order or rule.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that, although the application for leave to appeal was filed out of time, the circumstances—including the reasonable prospects of success regarding the costs order—justified condonation. The costs order in the main action was not restricted to those respondents against whom the rule had been issued and confirmed, and should not have been awarded against the first respondent. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted and costs were ordered to be costs in the appeal.
Obiter and limits
- The absence of appearance on the return date led to the confirmation of the rule with costs, but this should not have extended to the first respondent.
- The court emphasizes the importance of restricting costs orders to parties directly affected by the operative order.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal is granted; costs are to be costs in the appeal.
- The late application for leave to appeal is condoned.
- Leave to appeal is granted.
- Costs are to be costs in the appeal.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court
Judgment
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: C263/98
In the matter between
Western Cape Workers Association Applicant
and
Hazeley Piggeries Respondent
JUDGMENT
LANDMAN J
[1] The application for leave to appeal is out of time, but taking all the circumstances into account, particularly the prospects of success, the late application is condoned.
[2] The applicant in the main action (respondent in this application)applied for an interim interdict prohibiting the intimidation of casual and non-striking employees, and allowing them unimpeded access to the applicant’s premises. A rule was granted against the individual respondents on 23 June 1998. Costs were stood over until the return date, namely 29 June 1998. There was no appearance and the rule was confirmed with costs.
[3] The costs order relates to the respondents and was not restricted to those against whom the rule had been issued and confirmed.
[4] Costs should not have been awarded against the first respondent (the applicant in this application). There is, therefore, a reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
[5] Leave to appeal is granted.
[6] Costs are to be costs in the appeal.
A A LANDMAN
Judge of the Labour Court
SIGNED AND DATED THIS 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER 1998.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.