About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZALCJHB 140
|
|
Moabelo v Gold Fields Group Services (Pty) Ltd (JS492/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 140 (29 March 2018)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Not
Reportable
Not
of interest to other judges
Case
No
:
JS
492/15
In
the matter between:
KGABO
MOABELO
Applicant
And
GOLD
FIELDS GROUP SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Respondent
Heard:
09 June 2017
Delivered:
09 June 2017
Edited:
29 March 2018
EX
TEMPORE
JUDGMENT
SALOOJEE
AJ
INTRODUCTION
[1]
This is an
application in which the applicant seeks to direct the respondent
within 10 days of the order to produce certain documentation.
The
applicant relies on rule 6(9)(b) of the Labour Court’s rules,
as well as rule 11. Rule 6(9)(b) states that:
“
If parties cannot
reach an agreement regarding the discovery of documents and tape
recordings, either party may apply to the court
for an appropriate
order, including an order as to costs.”
[2]
Now,
discovery assists the parties and the court in discovering the truth
and to lead to a determination of any litigation, and
parties are
entitled to discovery only once legal issues are settled, and the
settling of issues allows the court in its discretion
to determine
the relevance of documents in an application of this kind.
There is also a long list of cases that have held
that a party may
only obtain an inspection or obtain copies of relevant documentation
based on the pleadings or the issues on the
pleadings and on the
pleadings alone.
[3]
Now, the
applicant’s case in the Statement of Claim is based on
contract. The applicant seeks a performance bonus in its first
claim,
in its second claim it seeks a recalculation of this bonus for the
year 2014, payment in terms of his letter of appointment,
and a claim
for negligent representation. On the first to third claims, the
applicant relies on his Letter of Appointment,
the Group Annual
Incentive Scheme and the Retrenchment Agreement, and on the fourth
claim for negligent misrepresentation, the
applicant relies on an
email that allegedly induced the applicant to act.
[4]
In as far
as the respondent’s argument is made that certain documents
required by the applicant that refer to other employees
would point
to an unfair labour practice dispute. I agree with the respondent on
that regard, however, I cannot agree with the
respondent in not
allowing or not disclosing certain documentation that was requested.
For this reason I am inclined to look at
the recordings or documents
that relate only to the applicant because no unfair labour practice
case has been made out. In as far
as the applicant would like to rely
on the reasonableness or the fairness of the Remco decision that case
is not made out in its
pleadings.
ORDER
1.
For this
reason I am inclined to grant an order in terms of prayer 1, with
regard to prayer 1.5.1.
2.
Each party
to pay their own costs.
_____________________
YF
Saloojee
Acting
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa