Zitha v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR474/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 153 (20 April 2016)

Zitha v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR474/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 153 (20 April 2016)

The court found that the applicant acted bona fide and without ulterior motive, pursuing his rights as endowed by the constitution. The inconvenience caused did not warrant a punitive costs order, as imposing such costs could deter lay persons from accessing the court. The Labour Court must balance law and fairness, and in this case, the withdrawal of the application and the applicant's circumstances justified no order as to costs.

Citation
[2016] ZALCJHB 153
Parties
Applicant: Zitha, Zakhele Allex Tummy; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Cormack, Glen N.O.; Respondent: National Institute for Higher Education; Respondent: Minister of Higher Education and Training
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 April 2016
Case Number
JR474/14
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application Withdrawn Before Hearing; Costs Argued
Outcome
Application withdrawn; no order as to costs.
Judges
Mosime
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Withdrawal of Application, Law and Fairness, Section 162 Lra
Labour Law Civil Procedure Costs Award Withdrawal of Application Law and Fairness Section 162 Lra

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zitha, Zakhele Allex Tummy

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Cormack, Glen N.O.

Respondent

National Institute for Higher Education

Respondent

Minister of Higher Education and Training

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application Withdrawn Before Hearing; Costs Argued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should punitive costs be awarded against the applicant after withdrawal of the application?
  2. 2 Does the applicant's status as a lay litigant affect the appropriateness of a costs order?
  3. 3 What considerations of law and fairness apply to costs in labour matters?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant acted bona fide and without ulterior motive, pursuing his rights as endowed by the constitution. The inconvenience caused did not warrant a punitive costs order, as imposing such costs could deter lay persons from accessing the court. The Labour Court must balance law and fairness, and in this case, the withdrawal of the application and the applicant's circumstances justified no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Application withdrawn; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • This matter is removed from the roll.
  • No order is made as to costs.