About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZALCJHB 366
|
|
Sipho v Gauteng Department of Education and Others (J1632/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 366 (29 November 2019)
the
labour court of South Africa, JOHANNESBURG.
Not
Reportable
case
no:
J
1632/19
In
the matter between:
MOTONG
JOHANNES SIPHO
Applicant
And
THE
GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
HOD
AN THE OFFICIALS EMPLOYED BY THE RESPONDENT
First
Respondent
Second
to Further Respondents
Heard
:
29 November 2019
Delivered
:
29 November 2019
Edited:
21 January 2019
ex tempore
judgment
MOSHOANA,
J
[1]
Before me is an application to commit certain respondents to
imprisonment
because of their non-compliance with the order of this
Court dated 31 July 2019. The applicant, Mr Motong, Johannes Sipho,
is appearing
in person, and prior to the commencement of the hearing
of this matter, I enquired from him whether he would need legal
representation,
and that was prompted by my reading of the papers
that were defective in many respects, however, he indicated that he
shall continue
with the matter without legal assistance.
[2]
I pointed out those difficulties, the first difficulty being that the
respondents have not been mentioned, it is only stated as the
“Gauteng Department of Education, HOD and the officials
employed
by the respondent”. That is not sufficient. The
Constitutional Court had recently in the
Merafong
judgment
made it very clear that in contempt proceedings parties who are
responsible to carry out the court order must be named
appropriately
because this involved imprisonment, or civil imprisonment, and takes
away rights of people.
[3]
The second difficulty is that there is no proper service. These
documents
and/or order was just handed to a clerk, it was not even
served through a sheriff. With all those difficulties, Mr Motong
insisted
that this application be heard. Nonetheless, Mr Ngutshane,
appearing for the respondents, indicated that an offer was made to
comply
with the order, and the applicant is actually refusing.
[4]
Clearly one of the requirements as set out in the
Faki
judgment is that there must be a clear intention, particularly where
there is imprisonment for not wanting to complying with the
order.
Now, this application does not meet those requirements, and for that
matter the application is dismissed with no order as
to costs.
[5]
In the result I make the following order:
Order
1. The application is
dismissed with no order as to costs.
_______________________
G. N. Moshoana
Judge
of the Labour Court of South Africa