Sneller Verbatim/ASS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS77/02
2003-02-26
In the matter between
V L MORGAN Applicant
and
BARONSCOURT SA (PTY) LIMITED Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
EX TEMPORE
_______________________________________________________________
_
REVELAS J:
1. This was an application for an order rescinding the
judgment and order of Francis J dated 17 April 2002.
The application was brought in terms of section 165 of
the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995, as amended. The
order was granted persuant to referral by the
respondent of an alleged unfair dismissal dispute in
terms of section 191 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of
1995 (“the Act”).
1. 1. 2. Rule 16(a) of the Rules of the Labour Court
requires the applicant to show that the order was
erroneously granted in its absence and it has prima
facie and bona fide defence on the merits. I have to
go further and state that there must also be an
adequate explanation and that good cause has to be
shown.
3. The explanation advanced by Mr Lewis (of the
respondent) for not opposing the matter, was that he
did not know about the application for default judgment
in that he was not notified. It is correct that the
Registrar of this court did not notify the respondent,
but then, in terms of the Rules, the Registrar is not
obliged to notify a party who has not done anything to
oppose the matter. No answering statement has been
filed by the respondent up to date. This, in my
view, would have indicated some willingness on the part
of the respondent to oppose the matter as it now wishes
to do.
1. 4. It is common cause that the respondent received the
applicant's statement of case, chose not to oppose it
and advanced the simple explanation that Mr Lewis had
elected to see “what would happen next” in the case.
Mr Lewis did so at his peril I am afraid. In the
applicant’s statement in case the respondent is put on
terms to file an answering statement and the
applicant's address of service was set out very
clearly. It was argued that Mr Lewis does not know
about the labour court rules and there was some
explanation to the effect that the statement of case
was erroneously seen as a letter of demand. However,
quite clearly, the statement of case titled with a
heading which states: " IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG). " Such a notice would
cause the reasonable person to pay attention to the
documentation and take steps. The respondent chose not
to deal with the documents and the rules of this court
were thereby flouted.
5. I have also considered the prospects of success
advanced by the respondent at this late stage, and
there is nothing therein that persuades me that the
prospects of success, if any, outweigh the other
considerations which I have taken into account.
6. In the circumstances I am not inclined to rescind the
order. Therefore, the application for recision is
dismissed with costs.
_______________
E. Revelas