Sneller Verbatim/HVDM
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: J125/01
2003-02-07
In the matter between
JOHANNES JACHIMUS HEYNEKE Applicant
and
I C NISSAN Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
_______________________________________________________________
_
REVELAS J:
1. This was an opposed application for the recission of a
cost order granted by myself in the absence of the
applicant. The cost order was granted against the
applicant, Mr Heyneke. The costs, according to the
respondent, would include the costs of an urgent
application by the respondent to stay the execution of an
order granted in terms of 158(1)(c) of the Labour
Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“the Act”) making an
arbitration award (in favour of the applicant) an order
of court.
2. The applicant was not informed of the date of hearing of
the recission application. The notice of set down was
only sent to the respondent's attorneys. The respondent
denies that this was so, but I have had sight of the
notice of set down myself and no mention is made of the
applicants.
3. The applicant further averred that he agreed with the
respondent's attorney that he would not oppose the
respondent's application for recission of the order
granted in terms of section 158(1)(c), that costs would
not be sought against the applicant.
4. This agreement is also in dispute. However, there is a
letter which the respondent did not put before me,
clearly written by the applicant to the respondent,
wherein he states that he would not oppose the
application for recission, provided that no cost order is
made against him. According to the respondent it had
sent the applicant a reply wherein it is set out in no
uncertain terms that they do not agree to his proposal.
This letter is not signed and it is sent to the
applicant's home address, whereas all previous
correspondence was sent to his office. The applicant
contends that he did not receive the letter. In the
circumstances I believe the applicant. The probabilities
indicate that he did not receive the letter.
5. It was further contended by the respondent that I granted
the cost order against the applicant because the
applicant brought the application in terms of section
158(1)(c) of the Act, knowing that there was a recission
application pending at the Commission for Conciliation,
Mediation and Arbitration regarding the seeking a
recission of the award and that the applicant had not
informed the court hereof. Not all the facts were before
me and I would not have given a cost order against the
applicant had all the facts been before me.
6. In the circumstances I rescind the order only in respect
of the costs. The recission stands but the cost order is
rescinded.
_________________
E. Revelas