Rahlogo and Anther v Aventura Loskopdam (JA56/98) [1999] ZALAC 38 (3 October 1999)

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Labour Appeal Court
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Labour Appeal Court
>>
1999
>>
[1999] ZALAC 38
|

|

Rahlogo and Anther v Aventura Loskopdam (JA56/98) [1999] ZALAC 38 (3 October 1999)

IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: JA 56/98
In
the matter between:
A.
RAHLOGO & ANOTHER
Appellant
and
AVENTURA
LOSKOPDAM
Respondent
___________________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________________
MOGOENG
AJA
[1] This
is an appeal against the determination made by the Industrial Court
in terms of the Labour Relations Act No. 28 of 1956 (‘the
old
Act’).
[2] The Appellant’s
representatives received the Respondent’s heads of argument on 15
June 1999. On 18 June 1999 they filed their
notice of withdrawal with
the office of the Registrar of this Court. At the time the
Appellant’s heads of argument, which ought
to have been filed on 4
June 1999, had not yet been filed.
[3] On the date of
hearing of this appeal, neither the Appellants nor their
representatives were in Court. Furthermore, the notice
of appeal was
not filed in time with the result that the appeal is not properly
before us.
[4] For these reasons,
the appeal stands to be struck off the roll.
[5] The
only outstanding issue is costs. The Respondent has asked for costs
against the Appellants’ representatives
de bonis propriis
.
In principle there is merit in that request and I would have been
inclined to grant such an order but for the reasons which follow.
[6] This
appeal is governed by the provisions of the Labour Relations Act No.
66 of 1995 (‘the Act’). Section 179(3) of the Act
provides that
this Court ‘
may order costs against a party to the dispute or
against any person who represented that party in those proceedings
before the court
.’ This Court is therefore empowered to grant
costs against a party’s representative
de bonis propriis.
The question then is who may represent a party to the proceedings
before this Court.
[7] The answer to this
question can be found in s178 read with s161 of the Act. Section 178
provides that any person who, in terms
of s161, may appear before the
Labour Court has the right to appear before the Labour Appeal Court.
Section 161 in turn provides
as follows:-
“ In any proceedings before the Labour Court,
a party to the proceedings may appear in person or be represented
only by a
legal practitioner
,
a co-employee or by a
member
,
an
office-bearer
or
official
of that
party’s
trade union
or
employers’ organisation
and, if the party is a juristic person, by a director or
employee
.”
[8] The
Appellants’ abovementioned representatives were Tshidi and
Associates who are labour and industrial relations consultants.
Their
representatives are not a firm of attorneys. Section 213 of the Act
defines a legal practitioner as ‘
any person admitted to practise
as an advocate or an attorney in the Republic
’.
[9] It follows,
therefore, that a labour and industrial relations consultant is
neither a legal practitioner nor any of the persons
who have a right
to appear on behalf of a party to the proceedings before this Court.
Consequently he or she cannot be a representative
envisaged by the
provisions of s179(3) of the Act against whom costs may be ordered.
[10] The Appellants’
representatives are, as I said, consultants and this Court cannot,
therefore, order costs against them prayed
for by the Respondent. In
this matter costs can, therefore, only be ordered against the
Appellants.
In the result, the appeal is struck off the
roll with costs.
_______________
MOGOENG
AJA
I
agree
_______________
CONRADIE
JA
I agree
_______________
NICHOLSON
JA
Appearances:
Appearing
for the Appellant: No Appearance
Appearing
for the Respondent: Ms H Strydom of Pienaar Swart & Nkaiseng
Attorneys
Date of
hearing: 15 September 1999
Date of judgment:
3 October 1999