About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2012
>>
[2012] ZALCJHB 166
|
|
South African Transport Allied Workers Union and Another v Three Flames Investments CC (JS 1150/09) [2012] ZALCJHB 166; (2013) 34 ILJ 2093 (LC) (20 December 2012)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE LABOUR COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Reportable
Case no: JS 1150/09
In the matter between:
SOUTH AFRICAN
TRANSPORT
AND ALLIED WORKERS
UNION
.....................................................................
First
Applicant
HLAHLA, M W
.............................................................................................
Second
Applicant
and
THREE FLAMES
INVESTMENTS CC
..................................................................
Respondent
Heard: 16 and 17
August 2012
Delivered: 20 December
2012
Summary: Automatically
unfair dismissal for participating in a protected strike –
jurisdictional challenge that second applicant
was not an employee of
the respondent - respondent found to be the employer –
dismissal automatically unfair as employee
was entitled to
participate in a protected strike.
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
BOQWANA AJ
Introduction
The
issue before this court is whether the dismissal of the second
applicant (‘Hlahla’) was automatically unfair in
terms
of section 187(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act
1
(‘the
LRA’) because he was dismissed for participating in a
protected strike and whether the dismissal was effected
in
accordance with a fair procedure.
The respondent denies
that the dismissal was automatically unfair. It alleges that Hlahla
was not a member of the first applicant
(‘the union’)
and neither was he an employee of the respondent. He was employed as
gardener by Motifprops 1092 CC
(‘Motifprops’) and
therefore the National Bargaining Council Freight Industry had no
jurisdiction to conciliate this
dispute and therefore the
conciliation certificate of outcome was null and void.
Hlahla gave evidence to
prove his case, whilst the respondent called Wayne Michael Thompson
(Thompson snr’). Hlahla gave
his own evidence through an
interpreter.
The
respondent sought to apply for absolution from the instance at the
end of the applicants’ case. I indicated to the parties
that
my
prima
facie
view
was that the applicant had placed a version that warranted response
from the respondent and that I would be inclined to refuse
the
absolution from the instance application. The respondent did not
persist with its application.
The respondent is cited
as a (Pty) Ltd in the statement of claim, and the respondent did not
correct this in its statement of
defence nor take issue with it. It
transpired during evidence that the respondent was a close
corporation (‘CC’)
when the registration papers were
produced. Reference to the respondent as a CC also appears on the
affidavit filed in support
of the condonation application for the
late filing of the statement of defence. I will not take issue with
this defect as the
citation is not challenged and in my view the
defect is not material.
Facts
The respondent’s
business falls within the jurisdiction of the National Bargaining
Council for the Road Freight Industry
(‘the bargaining
council’).
In December 2008,
parties to the bargaining council engaged in negotiations regarding
amendments and additions to the collective
agreements for the
implementation in 2009 and 2010.
Parties reached a
deadlock in October 2008 and referred a dispute to the bargaining
council.
On 22 January 2009, the
bargaining council issued a certificate that the matter remained
unresolved and on 26 March 2009 the CCMA
issued an advisory award.
On 27 March 2009, the
union gave notice to the bargaining council and the Road Freight
Employer’s Association that a strike
in support of the union’s
demand would commence on 07 April 2009.
On 07 April 2009, Hlahla
together with employees of the respondent participated in a strike
in support of the union’s demands
that had been tabled at the
bargaining council.
On 15 April 2009, after
issues the union were striking about were resolved, it terminated
the strike and called on its members
to resume duties on 16 April
2009.
Hlahla went back work on
16 April 2009 together with other employees who participated in the
strike.
On 17 April 2009, Hlahla
was issued with a notice to attend a disciplinary hearing for being
absent from work from 07 April 2009
to 15 April 2009, and for gross
misconduct in that he disobeyed a direct instruction from the
respondent’s management to
report to work before the strike
was terminated. The respondent states that reference to it in the
notice to attend the disciplinary
inquiry was an error and is
regretted.
The disciplinary hearing
was held at the respondent’s premises on 05 May 2009 and
Thompson snr gave evidence to the effect
that Hlahla was not a union
member and that Motifs Prop had nothing to do with transport.
Therefore his refusal to come to work
when instructed do so,
amounted to misconduct.
The inquiry was chaired
by a representative from employer’s association, NEOSA. The
chairperson referred to the respondent
as the employer in her notes.
Further, the
recommendation of the chairperson to have Hlahla summarily dismissed
was signed with the respondent being referred
to as the employer.
Hlahla was informed on
19 May 2009 that his services were terminated summarily. The
respondent denies that it dismissed him. A
dispute was referred to
the bargaining council. At the bargaining council, a
point in
limine
was raised on behalf of the respondent that the
bargaining council did not have jurisdiction to conciliate the
dispute as a wrong
employer had been cited. The commissioner at the
bargaining council issued a ruling on 29 July 2009 and ruled against
the respondent
as follows:
‘
The
applicant did not cite an incorrect employer. I make the finding that
the applicant was employed by Three Flames investment.
He was never
employed by Motis Pros CC (sic). The employer failed dismally to
prove that the applicant was dismissed by Three Flame
Investment not
Motis Prop CC (sic) as evidenced by the outcome of the disciplinary
hearing. I make a finding that the applicant
was employed by Three
Flames Investment and therefore the NBCRFI has jurisdiction to hear
this case’.
The respondent never
challenged this ruling and submits that this ruling is not binding
to the court. The fact that it was not
reviewed and set aside does
not give the bargaining council jurisdiction that it did not have in
the first place. The court may
independently consider the issue
objectively whether or not the ruling and a certificate of outcome
was issued.
Applicant’s case
Hlahla’s
evidence
Hlahla
testified that he was employed by the respondent
on
26 September 2005.
At the date of his
dismissal, he was earning R1550.00 a month. His duties included
working in the garden, warehouse,
assisting
the drivers to load and offload the parcels and deliver them, and
also on the water tanks project, in and outside the
country.
He
joined the union on 18 April 2008. He referred to a membership
application form to join a union dated 18 April 2008, which
he
alleges was completed by his shop steward and signed by him. The
important features from this form is that it referred to
Motifprops
1092 CC as an employer, sector as cleaning and station or depot as
Three Flames and department as general worker.
Hlahla claims that he
never gave information about Motifprops as an employer to the shop
steward and does not know why the shop
steward would put Motifprops
as employer. He presumed that the shop steward filled in the
information based on his payslip. The
said shop steward was
apparently the employee of the respondent. Notwithstanding the
information in the union membership form,
he
maintained that he knew nothing about Motifprops, since his
employment he had always known himself to be employed by the
respondent. Bruce Thompson (‘Thompson jnr’) was a
manager at the respondent.
Under cross examination,
his version was that he gave the information in relation to his name
and other personal particulars to
the shop steward but he did not
give the name Motifprops and that the shop steward must have
obtained it from his payslip.
Before a strike action
of 07 May 2009, a shop steward called a general meeting and
explained that a dispute that was referred
at the bargaining was
unresolved.
On 07 May 2009,
employees gathered at the SABC parking in Polokwane to commence with
the strike action.
At
about
07:45, when he checked the phone, he
noticed a missed call from Thompson snr, a father to Thompson jnr.
Thompson snr asked him
where he was. Hlahla told him that he was at
the strike. Thompson snr told him that he was not allowed to
participate in the
strike, because he was not a member of a union.
Hlahla disagreed with Thompson snr and advised him that he was at
the strike
because he was a member of the union.
Thompson snr called
again at about 16.00 still insisting that Hlahla must report to work
but Hlahla refused to do so, on the basis
that he was a union
member.
The following day Hlahla
informed his shop steward what Thompson snr had said. The shop
steward pulled a second membership form
and completed it. This form
is dated 14 April 2009. The key difference between this form and the
first one is that it reflected
the respondent’s name next to
company name.
On 16
April 2009,
when the strike had ended he
went back to work with other employees but was called in to the
office by the shop steward. Thompson
jnr asked the shop steward to
read him documents for the disciplinary enquiry.
The notice to attend the
inquiry that was given to him reflected the respondent as the
employer.
The notes of the
chairperson for the disciplinary hearing also reflected the
respondent as an employer.
A copy of a payslip
reflecting Motifprops was put to Hlahla during cross examination. He
confirmed that he had seen the payslip
before and received it. He
noted that it showed Motifs prop as an employer but he has never
taken time to read that before.
It
was put to Hlahla,
under cross
examination,
that his payslip contained no
deductions from the union to show that he was not a member of the
union.
Respondent’s
case
Thompson snr’s
evidence
Wayne Thompson testified
on behalf of the respondent that the respondent is involved in
transportation of goods on behalf of customers,
including courier
work.
He is the founding and
an executive member of the respondent and one of the two current
members. The other member being Thompson
jnr.
Both members are also
members of Motifprops CC respectively and Thompson snr is also an
executive member of Motifprops. Notably,
both entities share the
same information on the CIPRO’s certificate of confirmation
except start date. They have the same
address, registered office.
The respondent’s
business activities are stated as ‘Investment in movable and
immovable property and courier activities’.
Motifprop’s
business activities are stated as ‘real estate activities’.
Motifprops were not involved in transportation
and logistics,
courier work, anything relating to transportation.
He denied that Hlahla
was employed by the respondent but rather employed by Motifprops.
Motifprops are the
landlord of the respondent which hires or rents property from
Motifprops.
The relationship of
property maintenance in respect of properties owned by Motifprops
existed.
Hlahla was employed as a
general worker. In effect, he was a grounds man responsible for
various grounds duties and duties relating
to the maintenance of the
property, such as cleaning dust in certain of the warehouses that
Motifprops owned. He had been used
in the cleaning of those pieces
of territory.
As a general worker, it
was their prerogative to apply Hlahla to such work as they needed
him to do in the overall course of the
day’s proceedings. He
may have been called upon to assist in unloading a vehicle or
loading a vehicle as there is another
close corporation which
occupies part of the grounds they are now referring to. It is
conceivable that he may be called upon
to load or unload vehicles
but there should not have been any reason for anybody to believe
that he was employed by either of
those entities. His employment
clearly was by Motifprops.
During the strike,
he contacted Hlahla and told him to report to the
office immediately, because he was not part of the organisation that
was involved
in the dispute that had given rise to the strike and he
had no business to participate in the strike, and he ought to report
to work immediately. Under cross examination,
he
testified that he was not sure whether he told Hlahla to come back
to work because he was a union member or that he did not
belong to
the organisation that had gone on strike.
Reference to the
respondent as the employer in the notice to attend the disciplinary
hearing was a typographical error and regrettable.
It should not
have been there. He, however, did not issue the notice. It might
have been issued by Thompson jnr who was in charge
of these issues.
He could not comment on
what Hlahla’s defence to the charges levelled against him as
he was only called to testify as a
witness at the disciplinary
hearing.
He is not sure if the
membership form to deduct union subscription on behalf of Hlahla was
received.
It is conceivable that
Hlahla was asked to work at the respondent from time to time if an
extra muscle is needed but Thompson
snr was a bit removed from day
to day running of the operations.
Employees of Motifprops
and the respondent operate in the same environment.
Analysis
It is common cause that
the strike action that employees of the respondent participated in
was protected. The entire defence of
the respondent is that Hlahla
was employed by Motifprops as a gardener and not the respondent, and
accordingly the bargaining
council had no jurisdiction to conciliate
this matter. Secondly, Hlahla was not a paid up member of the union.
Union membership
Before I deal with the
employment relationship issue, I need to dispose of the issue of
union membership. A big part of evidence
was led on whether or not
Hlahla was union member. The respondent denied that he was. It seems
to me the attack on whether or
not he was a member of the union did
not go to the authority of the union in bringing this application as
a co-applicant, but
rather it went to his participation in a strike
action when he was not a member of the union. However, even if
authority had
been challenged which does not seem to be the case,
Hlahla is also cited as party independently of the union.
I
will,
therefore,
deal
with the issue of whether union membership was a prerequisite to
participating in the strike action and if it was, whether
or not
Hlahla was actually a member of the union.
In my
view, the recent judgment of the Constitutional Court in the case of
South
African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) and Others v
Moloto NO and Another
2
,
the court had to determine whether or not the dismissed strikers who
were not members were covered by the SATAWU strike notice.
This
court (per Ngcamu AJ) had found that non-membership would not have
excluded non-members of SATAWU from the protection of
the strike
notice and declared their dismissal automatically unfair. The
majority of the Labour Appeal Court, upheld Ngcamu AJ’s
decision holding that all employees in the bargaining unit whether
unionised or not were entitled to participate in the strike
action
if the majority union had referred the dispute for conciliation and
subsequently issued a strike notice in terms of section
64(1)(a) and
(b) of the LRA. As we know in this case, it is not disputed that the
union had followed those processes. The Supreme
Court of Appeal
overturned the LAC decision. The Constitutional Court overturned the
Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision
by concluding as follows:
‘
In the
context of this case this means that the union, which represented the
dismissed strikers in the wage negotiations and in
the referral for
attempted conciliation under section 64(1)(a) before embarking on
strike action, was competent also to give single
notice required
under section 64(1)(b). Our concluding observation is this: to hold
otherwise would place a greater restriction
on the right to strike of
non-unionised employees and minority union employees than on majority
union employees. It is these employees,
much more than those who are
unionised or represented by a majority union, who will feel the lash
of a more onerous requirement.
There is no warrant for that where
they were already denied the right to bargain collectively on their
own behalf in the preceding
process.’
3
Although
this decision dealt with whether non-unionised members were covered
by a strike notice issued by the union in a strike
action (in that
case employees were seemingly all from the same bargaining unit), I
am of the view that the principles espoused
in that judgment would
cover a situation where all employees of the employer (whether or
not in the same bargaining unit) go
on a protected strike in support
of the demands made by their union against the employer(s). I hold a
view that once Hlahla is
able to show that he was an employee of the
respondent, whether or not he belonged to the union when he
participated in the protected
strike action with other employees of
the respondent will become irrelevant. I,
therefore,
do
not need to deal with whether or not Hlahla was a member of the
union.
I
will not go into the wording of the notice in this case as that was
not the issue placed before this court. Even if it was,
the Moloto
case is binding as the CC held
:
‘The contrast with the minimal express requirements of section
64(1) (b) is stark. All that is expressly required in terms
of
section 64(1)(b) is a single notice stating when the strike will
start.....That requiring more than this will lead to uncertainty
and
a further chilling effect on workers reliance on their right to
strike is illustrated by the facts of this case.’
4
In any event, I cannot
accept a view that despite a membership form that was completed and
signed, which authorised subscriptions
by the employer, which
membership form was completed with a shop steward and a shop steward
later being allowed to represent
Hlahla at the disciplinary enquiry,
in all that Hlahla was still required to provide proof that the
union accepted his application
as a member. Further, I do not agree
that the fact that subscriptions were not deducted would mean that
Hlahla was not a union
member. Be that as it may the principles of
the CC in the case of Moloto stand. Hlahla did not need to be a
member of the union
to participate in the strike action. The issue
then that remains was whether he was an employee of the respondent.
Employment
relationship
It is common cause that
the jurisdictional ruling of the commissioner was not challenged by
the respondent by way of review. The
applicants propose that when a
ruling has been made on a jurisdictional point, that ruling stands
until it is set aside and accordingly
the respondent is precluded
from raising the jurisdictional point again after three years.
In as
much as I would criticise the respondent for not challenging the
ruling of the commissioner in review proceedings, I do
not agree
that the respondent is barred from raising the issue in these
proceedings. The court does have powers to determine
whether or not
the bargaining council had the necessary jurisdiction, whether or
not the certificate was issued. Put differently,
the issuance of the
certificate does not validate jurisdiction or bar the court from
determining the issue on its own in the
current proceedings. This is
in keeping with the well established principles set out in the
Labour Appeal Court’s decision
of
SA
Rugby Players Association and Others v SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd and
Others; SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd v SARPU and Another
5
where
the court held that the CCMA being a creature of statute did not
have the power to determine its jurisdiction but may do
so for
convenience. Therefore the bargaining council may not grant itself
jurisdiction it does not have. The question of whether
the
bargaining council had jurisdiction is a matter to be determined by
the Labour Court based on objective facts before it.
I am
satisfied,
therefore,
that
the issue of jurisdiction can be raised and determined at this stage
of the proceedings even in the face of the jurisdictional
ruling
made by the bargaining council.
Turning
to the facts before me, t
he
respondent raises a technical point that Hlahla was in fact employed
by Motifprops CC and not by the respondent. In support
of its
assertion,
the
respondent submitted CIPRO documents showing the two entities
registered separately, as well as a payslip (representing one
of
many monthly payslips) sent to Hlahla and timesheets. Both these
entities were owned and managed by the Thompsons. Their
employees
operated in the same environment.
The payslip indicates
the company name as Motifprops. Hlahla does not dispute that he had
seen such payslips before but he avers
that he never paid any
attention to the name ‘Motifprops in the payslip. He
maintained that all he knew in all his employment
life was that he
was employed by the respondent.
In my view, Hlahla’s
evidence is stronger than that of the respondent. It is supported by
disciplinary documentation filed
by the respondent and Thompson’s
non-committal statements where he could not conclusively rule out
the possibility of Hlahla
conducting certain duties for the
respondent and his evidence that as a general worker, the respondent
had a prerogative to utilise
Hlahla anywhere they deemed fit, at any
point in time.
Hlahla’s
evidence was that he worked in the garden but also
worked
in the warehouse, assisting the driver to load and offload the
parcels and deliver them, and also on the water tanks project,
in
and outside the country. Under cross examination,
he
alleged that he was initially employed as a cleaner but as time
progressed he was called to the cars to load and to work in
the
warehouse and to deliver parcels and some duties were to go outside
to make water tanks.
In
his evidence, Thompson suggested that Hlahla was employed as a
general worker and it was their prerogative to apply him to
such
work as they needed him to do in the overall course of their day’s
proceedings. H
e may have been called upon
to assist in unloading a vehicle or loading a vehicle but there
should not have been any reason for
anybody to believe that he was
employed by either of those entities.
Under
cross examination Thompson snr conceded that it was conceivable that
Hlahla had during the course of his employment done
various things,
that included loading and off loading in the warehouse, accompanying
drivers and deliveries and building water
tanks in the country and
outside but Thompson snr was a bit removed from day to day
activities and so could neither confirm nor
rule out that
possibility. Thompson jnr, who was more in touch with day to day
activities, was not called to testify. Mr Geldenhuys
argued that
there could have been times that Hlahla was asked to help but that
could not make him an employee, i.e. if someone
on occasion is asked
to help with the loading of a vehicle he does not all of a sudden
become an employee.
I do not understand
Hlahla’s version to be that he was asked on occasion to help
the respondent. I understand him to be
saying he was a general
worker applied in any manner by the respondent and that included
cleaning, loading or unloading of vehicles,
assisting the driver,
delivering parcels and other activities. Mr Geldenhuys’
submission does not seem to accord with Thompson
snr’s
evidence that they had a prerogative to apply Hlahla wherever he was
needed by virtue of being a general worker.
Thompson snr’s
evidence shows that Hlahla may have been used to also do work for
the respondent. Hlahla’ s evidence
in this regard should carry
more weight in my view because he was directly involved unlike
Thompson snr who was admittedly removed
from day to day activities
and therefore could not give conclusive evidence as to the substance
and the frequency of the activities
that Hlahla was asked to do for
the respondent.
Apart from Hlahla being
asked to assist at the respondent, the two entities were owned and
managed by the two Thompsons. It was
not indicated to Hlahla when he
received instructions whether those instructions were given by the
management in their capacity
as the respondent or as Motifprops.
Further, the respondent itself referred to the respondent as the
employer in disciplinary
documents. This cannot be dismissed as a
simple typographical error. The respondent represented itself as
Hlahla’s employer
to the extent that even the chairperson of
the disciplinary hearing referred to the respondent as the employer
in her notes and
the outcome of the disciplinary hearing, which
outcome was signed by a representative of the employer Thompson jnr,
who was not
called to testify in these proceedings. No attempt was
made to correct this alleged ‘error’ up until a dispute
was
referred to the bargaining council where for the first time the
respondent formally raised a point
in limine
. It does not
help for Thompson snr to claim that he told those involved that
there was an error when he became aware of it. The
fact remains the
documents filed as disciplinary documents were not rectified. The
respondent cannot have its cake and eat it.
Disciplinary papers went
to the bargaining council citing the respondent as the employer.
Further, the author of the disciplinary
notice, and signee of the
outcome, Thompson jnr, who was also the manager who apparently
interfaced with and would have given
daily instructions and work
activities to Hlahla was not called to give evidence. In so far as
the disciplinary papers are concerned
Hlahla was dismissed by the
respondent. Why should Hlahla be blamed for citing the respondent as
his employer and for referring
a dispute to the bargaining council
with the respondent’s name as the employer.
Mr Naidoo, applicants’
attorney argued that this juggling around of the two entities
amounts to abuse of juristic personalities.
If there be any
confusion as to who the correct employer is, it was created by the
respondent and its managing members themselves.
It, therefore, must
be estopped from denying that it is Hlahla’s employer.
In
Footware
Trading CC v Mdlalose,
6
the
LAC found that:
‘
The abuse of
juristic personality occurs too frequently for comfort and many
epithets have been used to describe the abuse against
which the
courts have tried to protect third parties, namely puppets, shams,
masks and alter ego. However the
general
principle underlying this aspect of the law of lifting the veil is
that when the corporation is the mere alter ego of business
conduit
of a person, it may be disregarded. The lifting of the veil is
normally reserved for instances where the shareholders or
individuals
hiding behind the corporate veil are sought to be made responsible. I
do not see why it should not also apply where
companies and closed
corporations are juggled around like puppets to the bidding of the
puppet master.
....
I therefore
conclude that Fila and Footwear were separate legal personalities,
but the effect of the mechanisation of Kotkin and
his staff were such
that they were in effect joint or co-employers. To the extent that
the appellant would like it otherwise, it
is estopped from denying
that fact by virtue of the numerous representations that were made
that either Footwear was the employer
or Footwear and Fila were the
joined employers. The principles of estoppel are well established in
our law. In
Alfred
McAlpine and Son (Pty) Ltd v Transvaal Provincial Administration
1977(4) SA 310 (T) the court at
335A said that estoppel arises where there has been some
representation of fact upon the faith of
which the other party acted
to his prejudice or detriment.’
There
is also no basis to argue that the duties of Hlahla did not fall
within the jurisdiction of the bargaining council. Part
of his work
fell within transportation within the respondent
and in any event, the respondent falls
within the jurisdiction of the bargaining council.
I,
therefore, find that the bargaining council had the necessary
jurisdiction to conciliate this dispute and since it is not disputed
that the strike was protected, the dismissal of Hlahla was
automatically unfair.
Although
the applicants had asked for reinstatement in their statement of
claim, Hlahla in his evidence testified that he did
not wish to be
re-instated, he has asked the court to grant him maximum
compensation. Therefore, although re-instatement is primary
remedy,
the court will grant him appropriate compensation. He testified that
he has had no employment since his dismissal. He
however conceded
during cross examination of having worked as a gardener on two
specific dates in May and in August 2012. Hlahla
has been out of
employment since May 2009. The two days that he worked after his
dismissal do not constitute substantial employment
that should
affect any compensation order by the court. I, therefore, see no
reason why the court should not award the maximum
compensation of 24
months against the respondent.
There is also no reason
why costs should not follow the result.
I,
therefore, make the following order:
The second applicant has
proven that there was an employment relationship between him and the
respondent.
The dismissal of the
second applicant was automatically unfair in terms of section
187(1)(a) of the LRA because he was dismissed
for participating in a
protected strike;
The respondent is
ordered to pay compensation equivalent to twenty four months’
remuneration in the amount of R36 000
calculated as R1500 x 24
within 30 days of this judgement;
The respondent is
ordered to pay costs to the applicants.
__________________
BOQWANA AJ
Acting Judge of the
Labour Court
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicants: Mr K
Naidoo, Cheadle Thompson and Haysom, Braamfontein
For the Respondent: Mr C
J Geldenhuys, Geldenhuys CJ @ Law Inc., Pretoria
1
Act
No. 66 of 1995
2
(2012)
(6) SA 249
(CC).
3
Id
at para 92.
4
Moloto
CC case supra at para 83 and 84
5
(2008)
29 ILJ 2218 (LAC)
[2008] ZALAC 3
; ;
(2008) 9 BLLR 845
(LAC) at para 40.
6
(2005)
26 ILJ 443 (LAC) at para 34-39.