About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZALCCT 39
|
|
Ndibi v Netcare Blaauwberg Hospital (2025/107838; 2025/123726) [2026] ZALCCT 39 (4 March 2026)
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
Case No: 2025-107838
2025-123726
In
the matter between:
QAQAMBA
NDIBI
Plaintiff
and
NETCARE
BLAAUWBERG HOSPITAL
Defendant
Heard: 3 March 2026
This judgment was handed down
electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal
representatives by email, publication on
the Labour Court website and
release to SAFLII. The date and time for handing down judgment is
deemed to be 10h00 on 4 March 2026.
JUDGMENT
DE KOCK, AJ
Introduction
[1]
The Plaintiff filed a
statement of claim in case number 2025-107838 (a dispute regarding
unfair discrimination – victimization)
and another statement of
claim in case number 2025-123726 (a dispute about an alleged
automatic unfair dismissal). The Defendant
filed various applications
in both matters in respect of exceptions and notices to remove causes
of complaint. The Plaintiff, in
reaction to the applications, filed
an amended, combined statement of claim without complying with Rule
20 of the 2024 Labour Court
Rules. This led to yet further
applications filed by the Defendant regarding an irregular step and
applications to set aside the
amended, combined statement of claim.
The Defendant requested that the applications be set down and both
parties presented their
respective submissions to the Court on 3
March 2026.
[2]
The Court must express
its dissatisfaction with the manner in which the said two disputes
have been prosecuted to date. The Plaintiff,
as an unrepresented
litigant, filed two statements of claim which fell short of the
requirements of Rule 11. In response, the Defendant
literally opened
the floodgates with various notices of exceptions, notices to remove
causes of complaint, notices of irregular
steps, and other similar
applications.
[3]
The Plaintiff, in an
attempt to resolve the various applications and in response thereto,
filed an amended, combined statement of
claim and later an updated
amended, combined statement of claim. Once again, this resulted in
the Defendant filing various further
notices in an attempt to have
the amended, combined statement of claim set aside due to
non-compliance with Rule 20. The Defendant
thereafter filed a notice
of enrolment, which led to the applications being set down for 3
March 2026. The pleadings filed in both
referrals are numerous and
most unfortunate. It is therefore necessary for this Court to give
effect to the interests of justice
of both parties and the objective
of speedy and effective resolution of labour disputes in determining
the various applications.
Notices of Exception,
Notices to Remove Cause of Complaint and Applications to Set Aside
[4]
This Court accepts,
based on the Plaintiff’s reaction to the various notices in
filing an amended, combined statement of claim,
that the Defendant
was justified in filing the initial notices. The issue to be
determined therefore is whether there are merits
to the subsequent
notices of an irregular step and the application to set aside the
amended, combined statement of claim, which
was filed without
complying with Rule 20.
[5]
The Court takes note
that the Plaintiff is representing herself. The Plaintiff was of the
view, since the Defendant had not filed
their statements of response
and based on the applications filed that she was entitled to file the
amended, combined statement
of claim without complying with Rule 20.
[6]
Had the amended,
combined statement of claim, and later an updated amended statement
of claim been properly drafted in terms of
Rule 11, this Court would
have been inclined to condone the Plaintiff’s failure to comply
with Rule 20 and would have directed
the Defendant to file their
statement of response.
[7]
The amended, and later
updated combined statement of claim, however, are still not
sufficiently drafted in compliance with Rule
11 and even if this
Court was to condone the non-compliance with Rule 20, this will
probably result in yet further applications.
It is not in the
interest of justice, or in the interests of the parties and this
Court to allow these two matters to continue
in a similar manner as
was the case to date.
[8]
This Court is of the
view that the application for the amended, combined statement of
claim to be set aside must be granted. The
Court is of the further
view that the Plaintiff must be afforded a further opportunity, after
having sought advice and taking into
consideration the various
concerns raised by the Defendant to date, to file a further
consolidated statement of claim in respect
of both referrals. Once
the statement of claim is filed, the Defendant will be required to
comply with the Rules by filing a statement
of response within the
time frames as prescribed by the Rules. Although the Defendant still
has the right to file further applications
for
inter
alia
exception
after having been served with the statement of claim, the Defendant
should carefully consider whether such further applications
will be
in the interest of justice given the fact that the Plaintiff is not a
legal representative and appearing in person.
Conclusion
[9]
For the reasons set out
above, this Court grants the Defendant’s application for the
amended, updated statement of claim to
be set aside subject to the
orders made below. The Court has considered the Defendant’s
application for the Plaintiff to
be ordered to pay the costs of the
numerous applications described above. This Court is not of the view
that the Plaintiff’s
actions were frivolous and vexatious and
finds that it is not in the interest of law and fairness to make any
order as to costs.
[10]
In the premises, the
following order is made:
Order
1.
The application for the
setting aside of the amended, updated statement of claim is granted.
2.
The two disputes
referred to the Labour Court under case numbers 2025-107838 and
2025-123726 are herewith consolidated.
3.
The Plaintiff must file
a consolidated statement of claim within 15 days of the date of this
order. The Plaintiff must upload the
statement of claim afresh and
allow the Court Online Portal to create a new case number. The new
case number will be used for the
further exchange of pleadings in
respect of both disputes referred under case numbers 2025-107838 and
2025-123726.
4.
The Plaintiff is
directed to comply with Rule 11 of the 2024 Labour Court Rules in
filing the statement of claim. More specifically,
the Plaintiff must
provide a clear and concise statement of the material facts, in
chronological order, on which she relies, in
sufficiently particular
terms to enable the Defendant to plead to the statement of claim; as
well as a clear and concise statement
of the legal issues that arise
from the material facts, in sufficiently particular terms to enable
the Defendant to plead to the
statement of claim. The Plaintiff is
also directed to ensure that the statement of claim is accompanied by
a schedule listing the
documents that are material and relevant to
her claim.
5.
The Defendant is
directed to comply with Rule 12 and 13 of the 2024 Labour Court
Rules, within the time frames stated therein, as
from the date on
which the statement of claim was filed.
6.
No order is made as to
costs in respect of the Defendant’s various applications and
notices.
C.
de Kock
Acting
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
For the
Plaintiff:
In Person
For the
Defendant:
H Nieuwoudt
Instructed
by:
V Reddy
From:
Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa Inc.