IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: J1140/23
In the matter between:
MAPANE TSHEPO AND OTHERS Applicant
and
CLEAR CREEK TRADING 167 (PTY) LTD T/A WIREFORCE First Respondent
MOMENTUM METROPOLITAN LIFE LIMITED Second Respondent
Heard: 30 July 2025
Delivered: 30 September 2025
JUDGMENT
SASS AJ
Introduction
[1] This is an application to join the Second Respondent, Momentum Metropolitan
Life Limited, as a party to this matter.
Relevant background facts
[2] The First Respondent and the Second Respondent did not oppose the
application. Both filed a Notice of Intention to Abide.
[3] The Second Respondent filed a n Affidavit along with its Notice of Intention to
Abide, deposed to on its behalf by Gregory Wyne Peck, an employee of MMH
Holdings Limited (‘the Peck Affidavit’).
Analysis
[4] The Second Respondent’s Notice of Intention to Abide indicates that, inter
alia, it does not oppose the joinder application. Although the Second
Respondent contends in the Peck Affidavit that the joinder application is ill -
conceived and that there is no plausible reason to join the Second
Respondent, it goes on to state that as the Applicant is not seeking any relief
against the Second Respondent in the main application, no reason exists why
the Second Respondent should oppose the joinder application.
[5] It is debatable whether the Applicant has made out a proper case for joinder of
the Second Respondent , having regard to the applicable legal principles in
relation to joinder.
[6] As regards the legal principles, I can do no better than to quote the relevant
paragraph of this Court’s judgment (per Prinsloo J) in Nehawu obo Phuthi
Seloba v The Office of the Premier: Limpopo -
‘[49] …….. It is trite that for parties to be joined to particular proceedings,
they must have a direct and substantial legal interest in the matter
such as to make them necessary parties to the proceedings. Only
parties that would be directly affected by the Court’s order or whe re
the order cannot be sustained or carried into effect without
prejudicing such a party are necessary parties to the proceedings.’
[7] The First Respondent, in its Statement of Response in the main application,
raised a number of Special Pleas , the third of which was a Non- Joinder
Special Plea in relation to the non- joinder of, inter alia , the Second
Respondent, being a party to which the First Respondent paid a portion of the
amounts deducted from Tshepo Mapane and Others (the Applicant/s in this
matter), which is the deductions to which the main application relates.
[8] The First Respondent contends in paragraph 3.3 of its Statement of Response
that, inter alia , the Second Respondent has a substantial interest in the
subject matter of the proceedings (the main application) and its absence
constitutes a material non-joinder.
[9] It does therefore appear that the Applicant has been left with no alternative but
to apply for the joinder of the Second Respondent. Any semblence of an
opposition to its joinder by the Second Respondent may possibly have
resulted in this Court potentially not joining it as a party.
[10] The expeditious resolution of labour disputes is a fundamental principle, and
the joinder application should be considered against that backdrop. This Court
has emphasized the need for expeditious dispute resolution to uphold the
Labour Relations Act’s purpose of promoting fairness for employees and
employers by avoiding delays.
[11] The interests of justice and the need to bring the main application to finality as
expeditiously as possible militates in favour of the joinder of the Second
Respondent.
Costs
[12] The joinder application was not opposed, and a costs order is accordingly not
appropriate in the circumstances.
[13] In the circumstances, the Court makes the following order:
Order
[14] Momentum Metropolitan Life Limited is joined as a party to this matter as the
Second Respondent.
[15] No order is made as to costs.
_____________________
M Sass
Acting Judge of the Labour
Court of South Africa
Appearances
For the Applicant: Phumulani Nyembe (Attorney)
For the First Respondent: Magdeline Modiba (Attorney – Anton Bakker
Attorneys) holding a watching brief.
For the Second Respondent: No appearance.