<1 Di¢ ?
Ss d
Ms MN
CORSOuS
Not reportable
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT CAPE TOWN
CASE NO: C674/2016 &
C754/2017
In the matter between:
DIRECTOR GENERAL: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER:
WESTERN CAPE First Applicant
THE HEAD: THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
& PUBLIC WORKS Second Applicant
and
NEHAWU obo MNCEDISI MICHAEL NOBALA
AND MTHETHUNZIMA ALFRED THUNZI First Respondent
GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL
2
BARGAINING COUNCIL Second Respondent
COLIN RANI N.O. Third Respondent
Date of Hearing: 24 June 2025
Date of Judgment: 3 July 2025
Summary: Application to archive a matter in terms of Practice Manual clause 16.1
— need to adopt course which will best serve interests of justice.
JUDGMENT
A OOSTHUIZEN, AJ
1. The issues that arise for consideration are, firstly, whether the dispute
between the parties is settled and, secondly, under what circumstances a
matter should be archived as envisaged in clause 16 of the Practice Manual.
2. A dispute of fact exists as to whether the matter has been settled. These
being motion proceedings, such dispute has to be decided on the version
put up by the First Respondent, NEHAWU, except where such version
raises allegations that are so improbable or farfetched that they may safely
be rejected on the papers. There is no suggestion that any of the averments
put up in the affidavits filed by NEHAWU can be rejected on the papers.
3
3. The allegation by the Applicants is that the dispute between the parties was
settled at a meeting which took place on or about 5 July 2022. A letter
written by the State Attorney on behalf of the Applicants on 2 August 2022
contains confirmation of instructions issued to the State Attorney “to make
the following counter-offer, entirely without prejudice to the Applicants’
rights herein” (details of the counter-offer are then set out). If, as alleged,
the matter had been settled a month previously, it is inconceivable that a
letter containing a counter-offer of this nature would have been sent out by
the State Attorney on 2 August 2022.
4. The contention that the matter was settled on 5 July is also consistent with
a joint minute filed by the parties dated 8 July 2022, paragraph 2.2 whereof
reads as follows:
“The Applicants and the First Respondent were directed to
endeavour to settle the matter. The Applicants and the First
Respondent are currently engaged in exhaustive negotiations.”
[Emphasis supplied]
5. What this clearly conveys is that, as of 8 July 2022, the matter had not yet
been settled.
6. Given these facts, the contention that the dispute currently pending has
been settled cannot be sustained.