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
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZALCCT 4
|
|
Sheriff for the High Court for the District of Wynberg North v RPL Assessment Centre (Pty) Ltd and Others (C519/16) [2017] ZALCCT 4 (3 February 2017)
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
JUDGMENT
NOT
reportable
Case
no: C519/16
In the
matter between:
SHERIFF
FOR THE HIGH COURT
FOR
THE DISTRICT OF WYNBERG NORTH
Applicant
and
RPL
ASSESSMENT CENTRE (PTY) LTD
Execution Debtor
ANNETJIE
DEBORA OOSTHUIZEN
Execution
Creditor/ First Claimant
PIETER
BAREND
SWART
Second Claim
ant
Heard
:
25/11/2016
Delivered
:
3 February 2017
JUDGMENT
RABKIN-NAICKER
J
[1] This
interpleader was first set down on the 14 October 2016 but was
postponed as the Second Claimant informed the Applicant
he was
suffering from ill-health. It was then set down to be heard on the 25
November 2016. On the 16 November, a letter was received
from the
First Claimant’s dental surgeon stating that he would not be
able to travel for the rest of the year. No application
for
postponement was filed.
[2] The
Second Claimant was in court having driven to Cape Town from Knysna
for the hearing. She filed an affidavit with leave of
the court on
that day with the pro-bono assistance of Counsel.
[3] The
matter comes before me in the wake of an interpleader summons in
which the Applicant stated that movable property had been
attached by
virtue of a Warrant of Execution – Case no: WECT10689/15 issued
by the labour Court. The items attached in terms
of the warrant were
in respect of a settlement agreement that was made an arbitration
award in terms of section 142A(1) of the
LRA. The settlement
agreement was to the effect that the Respondent pay the first
claimant amount of R11 7000 by no later than
30 September 2015.
[4] I
note in the affidavit filed of record by the First Claimant that she
alleges that after the settlement agreement was signed
by the parties
at the CCMA, the Second Claimant shouted down the passage to her that
she would not get a cent from him. Be that
as it may, this is a
matter in which the Second Claimant has failed to appear at court on
two occasions and has not bothered to
send a legal representative to
represent him.
[5] It is
trite that the Labour Court deals with interpleader applications in
terms of Rule 11 of this court, i.e. it does so with
reliance on the
provisions of Rule 58 of the Uniform Rules of Court. Rule 58(5)
provides that where a party such as Second Claimant
fails to appear
in court he may be barred from making any claim against the applicant
on the subject matter of the dispute. I therefore
make the following
order:
Order
1.
Pieter Barend Swardt, the Second Claimant is barred as against the
Applicant from making any claim on the subject matter of the
interpleader proceedings.
__________________
H.
Rabkin-Naicker
Judge
of the Labour Court
Appearances:
First
Claimant in person