Monyai v Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (J1388/15) [2016] ZALCD 17 (12 August 2016)

15 Reportability

Brief Summary

Contempt of Court — Application for contempt — Applicant's refusal to return to work — Respondents provided reasonable explanation for non-compliance — Applicant's bald denial insufficient to establish contempt. The applicant sought to hold the respondents in contempt of court, alleging non-compliance with a court order. The respondents presented a detailed explanation indicating compliance, while the applicant failed to provide a reasonable response and expressed a desire for a financial settlement instead of returning to work. The court dismissed the contempt application with no order as to costs, finding no contempt had been established.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Durban Labour Court, Durban
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Durban Labour Court, Durban
>>
2016
>>
[2016] ZALCD 17
|

|

Monyai v Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (J1388/15) [2016] ZALCD 17 (12 August 2016)

I
N
THE
LABOUR
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
,
DURBAN
JUDGMENT
Not
Reportab
l
e
Case
no
:
J1388
/
15
I
n
the matter between:
PHATHUTSHEDSO
SOLOMON
MONYAI
Applicant
and
FIDELITY
SECURITY SERVICES
(PTY)
LTD                                              First
Respondent
W
J
BARTMAN
Second Respondent
Heard:
12 August 2016
Del
i
vered
:
1
2
August 2016
JUDGMENT
WHITCHER
J
[1]
The
contempt
application is dismissed with no order
as to costs. My reasons
are
as
follows.
[2]
The
respondents
provided
a
detailed
reasonable
explanation
which
indicated that
they
are
not
in
contempt
of
court
.
[3]
The
applicant
did
not
provide
an
answering
affidavit
but
I
permitted
him
to
respond
to
the
respondent's case
in
court.
[4]
He did not provide a
reasonable
probable
response.
He just
gave a bald denial
of the respondent's version.
I
t also
became clear that
he
does not want to return to work
but
wanted
the
court to order
a financial settlement.
Th
i
s
l
ent
credence to the
respondent's
version
that
the
applicant did
not
tender
his
services
.
[5]
The applicant also refused my
suggestion
that if
he
wants a
financial
settlement
as
opposed
to
returning to
the
respondent's
employ
he
should
discuss
the
matter
with their attorney who was present
in
court
.
The attorney
indicated to
the court
that
he is prepared
to discuss same with the applicant. The
applicant
however
refused to do so and
i
nsisted
that the court make a financial order
.
I
explained I
cannot
do this.
Order
[6]
I
n the
premise
s
,
the following
order
is
made:
1.
The contempt appl
i
cation
is
dismissed
with
no order as
to
costs
____________________________
Benita
Whitcher
Judge
of the Labour Court of South Africa