About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZALCJHB 124
|
|
Lambons (Pty) Ltd t/a Lambons Peugot (Pty) Ltd v Barker and Others (J631/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 124 (25 April 2017)
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not
Reportable
Case no: J631-17
In
the matter between:
LAMBONS(PTY)LTD
t/a LAMBONS PEUGOT(PTY)LTD
Applicant
and
MELISSA
BARKER
First
Respondent
COMMISSION
OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CENTRE
Second
Respondent
SHERIFF
BLOEMFONTEIN EAST
Third
Respondent
Heard:
19 April 2017
Delivered:
25 April 2017
JUDGMENT
WHITCHER
J
Introduction
[1]
The applicant seeks an order on an urgent basis
that the third respondent and the Sheriff be interdicted from
enforcing / executing
the arbitration award issued by Commissioner M
Terblanche dated 7 November 2016, pending the finalisation of the
application filed
on 10 January 2017 for the review of the award.
[2]
In my view, it would be just and equitable to
grant the application in light of the following.
[3]
Section 145(7) of the LRA provides that the
institution of review proceedings does not suspend the operation of
an arbitration award,
unless the applicant furnishes security to the
satisfaction of the court in accordance with subsection (8).
[4]
I
have perused the security bond provided and the fact that the
relevant amount has been paid into the trust account of the
applicant’s
attorney, and hold that the applicant has provided
security to the satisfaction of the Court.
[5]
The rights of the CCMA or DRC or the Commissioner
will not be affected by a judgment made in this matter since no
relief is sought
against these parties and the application is not
directed at setting aside any act committed by these parties. The
application
is to stop the first respondent and sheriff from
enforcing the arbitration award certified by the CCMA. In light
hereof there was
no need to join these parties to this application.
Urgency
[6]
This urgent application was filed 8 days after
the sheriff attempted to execute the writ and after the applicant
first attempted
to resolve the issue with the first respondent’s
attorneys. The applicant thus acted as expeditiously as it could in
bringing
this application.
Defective Review
Application
[7]
The review application was filed 20 days late,
with no accompanying condonation application. I do not see why this
application to
stay should be dismissed on account that the review
was filed late since it is still open to the applicant to file a
condonation
application.
Order
[8]
The applicant’s non-compliance with the ordinary forms, service
and time periods provided for in the Rules of the Labour
Court is
condoned and the matter is dealt with as one of urgency.
[9]
The first respondent and the third respondent [Sheriff Bloemfontein
East] is ordered not to execute and enforce the arbitration
award
issued by Commissioner M Terblanche dated 7 November 2016 and
certified by the CCMA under case number MINT 50205 or proceed
with a
sale in execution in respect of the award pending the outcome of the
review application filed by the applicant.
[10]
There is no order as to costs.
________________________________
Whitcher J
Judge of the Labour Court
of South Africa
APPEARANCES:
For
the Applicant: TC Hitge Incorporated
For
the First Respondent: Gerrie Ebersohn Attorneys