About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
>>
2012
>>
[2012] ZALCCT 48
|
|
Democratic Union of Security Workers (DUSWO) and Others v Royal Serve Cleaning (Pty) Ltd (C498/2011) [2012] ZALCCT 48 (17 February 2012)
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT CAPE TOWN
Case No: C498/2011
In the matter between:
THE DEMOCRATIC UNION OF
SECURITY WORKERS (DUSWO)
............................................................
First
Applicant
DUSWO MEMBERS EMPLOYED BY
THE RESPONDENT
.......................................................
Second
and Further Applicants
and
ROYAL SERVE CLEANING (PTY) LTD
Respondent
RULING
CONRADIE AJ
In a judgment dated 19 August 2011 I confirmed a
rule nisi
which was issued on 14 July 2011 and ordered the Applicants in this
application (DUSWO) to pay costs.
On 21 October 2011 DUSWO applied for leave to appeal against the
whole of my judgment and order handed down on 19 August 2011.
They
also applied for condonation for the late filing of their
application. The Respondent (the company) opposes the application
for condonation and for leave to appeal.
DUSWO seeks leave to appeal against my judgment on the basis that I
erred in-
3.1. Granting a final interdict in circumstances where the
prerequisites therefore had not been met.
3.2. Finding that DUSWO’s organiser, Mr Bizo, who deposed to
the affidavits on its behalf, was a liar because he claimed
not to
have had sight of a supplementary affidavit, filed by the company’s
Mr Hendricks, when deposing to his first affidavit.
3.3. Awarding costs against DUSWO.
The first issue to be determined is whether or not condonation
should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave
to appeal.
According to DUSWO it only received the judgment on 26 September
2011 and as such were required to apply for leave to appeal
by 10
October 2011. They, however, only filed it on 21 October 2011, which
according to them is eight days late.
The company opposes the application for condonation mainly on the
basis that a full explanation has not been given in respect
of the
delay. The company also argues that, in fact, the entire judgment
was read out in court on 19 August 2011, as opposed
to brief
reasons, and that this date must be used for calculating the date by
which leave to appeal should have been applied
for.
Although I read my judgment out in court, it does appear that
certain changes were made to it thereafter. In particular, I mention
in my written judgment handed to the parties that Mr Bizo’s
lack of honesty was a factor in considering the awarding of
costs
against the union. As this was not in the judgment handed down in
court, I am prepared to accept that full reasons were
only available
on 26 September 2011.
I do not believe that the eight day delay in bringing this
application is inordinate. I also accept the explanation that
various
processes had to be followed before the union could approve
the launching of this application. As far as prospects of success
are concerned, it is possible that another court may come to a
different conclusion.
In the circumstances the late filing of this application is condoned
and leave to appeal is granted. There is no order as to
costs.
………………………………
Conradie AJ
Acting Judge of the Labour Court
Date of Ruling – 17 February 2012