Summary Judgment — Application for summary judgment — Plaintiff, Shackleton Credit Management (Pty) Limited, seeks R250,626.90 plus interest on a personal loan agreement ceded from Standard Bank — Defendants, Kamal and Shanitha Deolall, raise defences of prescription, lack of jurisdiction, and defective cession, among others — Court finds that the defences do not raise bona fide triable issues; prescription interrupted by payments and acknowledgment of debt — Cession valid and properly pleaded — Court has jurisdiction over both defendants — Summary judgment granted with costs.
Judgment — Electronic hand-down — Procedure for electronic delivery of judgments — Judgment prepared and circulated electronically in compliance with court rules — Validity of electronic hand-down upheld as conforming to established legal protocols.
Labour Law — Strike Action — Urgent interdict to halt strike — Applicant sought to prevent NUMSA from striking during retrenchment consultations — CBS Global initiated retrenchment process under Section 189A of the LRA due to financial pressures — NUMSA claimed issues of wage reduction and short-time work were independent mutual interest disputes not related to retrenchment — Court evaluated factual disputes under the Plascon-Evans test — Held: NUMSA's intended strike action was premature and not protected, as the issues raised were part of the ongoing retrenchment process and had been addressed in consultations.
Leave to appeal — Interim interdict — Application for leave to appeal against an interim interdict granted to the applicants — Respondents contending that the judgment lacked factual basis and that the second applicant, a non-trading company, had no rights requiring protection — Court finding that the respondents failed to address the systematic collection of confidential information by the first respondent prior to leaving the applicants — Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, as the court was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion.
Trusts — Administration of Trust — Dispute over trustee conduct and beneficiary rights — Plaintiffs sought removal of trustees and reinstatement of maintenance payments — First plaintiff alleged payments were maintenance, while defendants contended they were consultancy fees — Court required to determine nature of payments, enforceability of rights, and trustee conduct — Evidence revealed ongoing family disputes and allegations of unequal treatment among beneficiaries — Court found that trustees had not breached fiduciary duties and dismissed claims for removal and reinstatement of payments.
Labour Law — Unfair dismissal — Review of arbitration award — Employee dismissed for failing to conduct outside inspections after leaving the plant due to illness — Commissioner finding dismissal substantively unfair and ordering reinstatement — Employer seeking review of award on grounds of gross irregularity and inappropriate sanction — Court holding that the commissioner’s decision fell within a band of reasonableness, considering the employee's long service and clean record, and the evidence of illness presented.
Eviction — Commercial lease — Termination of lease agreement — Applicant seeking eviction of respondents for non-payment of rent — Respondents disputing amount in arrears but not the fact of arrears — Court finding that lease was validly terminated due to non-payment, and that acceptance of late payments did not revive the lease — Point in limine of lis pendens dismissed as issues in eviction application distinct from pending action for damages — Eviction order granted against respondents, with costs awarded to the applicant.
Insolvency Law — Sequestration — Rescission of sequestration order — Applicants seeking to rescind a sequestration order granted for their voluntary surrender of a joint estate — Court finding that applicants failed to disclose substantial assets, which constituted a material omission — Mistaken belief regarding asset exemption not amounting to exceptional circumstances for rescission — Application dismissed as no unusual or special circumstances established.
Application — Amendment of notice of motion — Rule 28(4) of Uniform Rules of Court — Applicant sought to amend notice of motion to include new prayers and a claim for unjust enrichment — Respondent opposed on grounds of lack of supporting facts in founding affidavit and prescription of the claim — Court found that the proposed amendments were not substantiated in the founding affidavit and dismissed the application, ordering costs against the applicant.
Labour Law — Unfair dismissal — Applications for amendment and consolidation — Applicant employed in senior position alleged unfair discrimination and automatic unfair dismissal — Respondent's exceptions upheld due to vague and embarrassing pleadings, leading to dismissal of claims — Applicant's subsequent attempts to amend claims deemed incompetent — Court directed to close file on one case while allowing opportunity to apply for amendment in another case, subject to condonation for delay.
Labour Law — Dismissals — Jurisdiction of Labour Court — Interpretation of sections 189A(7)(b)(ii) and 191(11) of the Labour Relations Act — Applicants dismissed due to operational requirements after a failed facilitation process — Respondent contended that conciliation was a jurisdictional precondition before approaching the Labour Court — Labour Court held that no further conciliation was required post-facilitation — Labour Appeal Court reversed this decision, mandating conciliation — Constitutional Court granted leave to appeal, upheld the appeal, and reinstated the Labour Court's order, remitting the matter for adjudication on the merits.
Law of Property — Unlawful occupation — Eviction — Expropriation — City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality appealed against the high court's order setting aside its notice to expropriate property owned by Summer Season Trading 63 (Pty) Ltd, while the illegal occupiers appealed the dismissal of their counter-application regarding relocation. The high court had previously confirmed the eviction of the occupiers and ordered the City to provide alternative accommodation. The City contended that the subsequent expropriation notices were valid and superseded the eviction order. The legal issues included the validity of the expropriation notices and the rights of the occupiers under existing court orders. The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the high court's decision, confirming the invalidity of the expropriation process and ordering the City to complete the relocation of the occupiers within one year.