IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
Case no: 2026-137998
Date of hearing: 17 June 2026
In the matter between:
ZUKISWA NTYINKALA Applicant
and
ROSEBANK INTERNATIONAL (PTY) LTD First Respondent
LERATO KUNGOANE Second Respondent
JUDGMENT: REASONS
SNYMAN, AJ
[1] The In this matter, the applicant brought an urgent application to interdict
pending disciplinary proceedings . F ollowing the filing of that application and
the filing of an answering affidavit by the first respondent, and on 14 June
2026, the applicant filed a notice of withdrawal of the application, in its entirety.
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER
JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
17 June 2026
2
[2] In this notice of withdrawal of the application, it was indicated that there is no
order to costs. It is of course true that an applicant cannot withdraw an
application without tendering costs and certainly cannot unilaterally say there
is no order as to costs. Where a matter is withdrawn, which is entirely the
prerogative of the applicant and costs are not tendered, it avails the first
respondent to deal with the issue of costs and ask that costs be awarded for
the abortive application by filing notice to that effect . This the first respondent
has done.
[3] The fact of the matter is that the aforesaid leaves the issue for costs as the
only basis for the application today , and the only issue to be decided by this
court. Costs are not determined on the urgent role. The issue of costs, as is
apparent from how the parties addressed me in this case, requires an
extensive consideration of all of the background facts leading to this matter,
how the parties conducted themselves, the content of the pleadings, and of
course what happened upon this application being withdrawn with particular
reference to the correspondence between the parties. It is not an issue that
deserves the attention of this court on an urgent basis. An urgent court is there
to deal with the substantial merits of a matter, and that is that . The urgent
court only deals with the issue of costs once it has also determined the case
on the merits, as the one then flows from the other and all of the issues are
fully ventilated in the application.
[4] I find it inappropriate that the urgent court be tasked to finally decide the issue
of costs in this particular case. What makes it worse is that urgently deciding
the issue of costs, considering this is an urgent court, must still satisfy the
requirements of urgency. Mr. Cook has submitted that the first respondent did
not bring the application in the first place, but the applicant did, so costs
not bring the application in the first place, but the applicant did, so costs
should be now decided. Who brought the application does not matter. The
whole case, per se, including prayers for costs, comes before this court as an
urgent application. As such, it must satisfy the requirements of urgency, no
matter who brought the application and who raised what issues. In an urgent
application, one of the essential requirements to entertain the matter as one of
urgency, is the inability to obtain substantial redress in the ordinary course.
There is absolutely no basis upon which either party cannot obtain full
3
substantial redress in the orderly course when it comes to the issue of cost s.
When the merits fell away, the urgency fell away, and this would include
deciding the issue of costs.
[5] In conclusion, the issue of cost s alone does not belong on the urgent roll, and
the application falls to be removed from the roll. The issue of cost s with regard
to the appearance of today can be dealt with along with the costs relating to
the withdrawal of the application when this matter is set down on the opposed
motion roll in the ordinary course to decide the issue of costs.
[6] In the premises, the following order is made
Order
1. The application is removed from the roll.
2. The issue of costs in the application which has been withdrawn is to be
dealt with on the opposed motion in the ordinary cause
_____________________
S. Snyman
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa