IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG J2859/98 SOUTH AFRICAN AGRICULTURAL PLANTATION AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION JUDGMENT
|
|
- Myles Rose
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG J2859/98 BEFORE Landman J In the matter between SOUTH AFRICAN AGRICULTURAL PLANTATION AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION Applicant and HL HALL AND SONS (GROUP SERVICES) LTD AND OTHERS Respondents JUDGMENT [1] The SAAPAWU urgently seeks a final interdict against HL Hall and Sons (Group Services) Ltd (the parent company); HL Hall and Sons (Nurseries) (Pty) Ltd (HL nurseries), HL Hall and Sons (Farms) (Pty) Ltd (HL Farms) and HL Hall and Sons (Timber) (Pty) Ltd (HL timber) (I shall also refer to the last three as the other companies) interdicting them from dismissing the union s members who are involved in a protected strike except in terms of the law. [2] The approach which must be adopted to the facts is that set out in the well known case of Plascon Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623 (A) at [3] The facts, on which I may rely, can be tabulated as follows:
2 1. HL Hall and Sons (Group Services) Ltd, HL Nurseries, HL Farms and HL Timbers are different legal personae. 2. In 1990 as a result of a strike the services of employees were terminated and HL Nurseries, HL Farms and HL Timbers separately engaged labour including former employees of the parent company. 3. HL Nurseries, HL Farms and HL Timbers exist to engage labour to work on the parent company s property. They received a fee for these services. They do not conduct any other business. 4. The parent company also employs some 97 employees. 5. The unions and its members who are employed by the respondents are engaged in a protected strike. They may not be dismissed for striking. 6. The strike has been a protracted one. There is no end in sight. 7. Next week the parent company is applying in the High Court for the liquidation of HL Nurseries, HL Farms and HL Timber on the grounds that these companies are insolvent and unable to pay their debts. The companies have no income but have had expenses in connection with the accommodation and feeding of the strikers. See s 67(4) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of The management of these companies have stated that when the High Court rules on their bankruptcy all jobs end. [4] An initial question to be decided is whether the union has shown that the parent company is the employer of its members on strike or, as was also contended, whether any of the other companies employ union members on strike. [5] The facts on which I must rely point to all the respondents being employers.
3 There is no overlap between them. This was a result of a definite plan to isolate the parent company (save for a few employees) from any labour force. It may well be that if the matter were to come to trial the union may succeed in showing that the parent company and one of the other companies are to be regarded as a joint employer or it may show that some union members are employed by more than one employer. This fact has not been established on these papers. [6] I am satisfied that each company is an employer of some of the union s members, as the respondents allege, and that there is a threat made by management that the services of the union s members who work for the three companies will terminate on liquidation of the companies. This threat requires further investigation. It will be attempted below. [7] The need for an interdict, assuming it is permissible to grant one, can only arise once the liquidation of the three companies is granted. Whether the companies will be liquidated or not is for the High Court to decide. Until then there is no immanent danger of the strikers right to strike being endangered. None of the respondents have indicated any intention to dismissed the strikers engaged in the protected strike until then. Even then it will not be a management decision. [8] But if the companies are provisionally liquidated then, although the companies continue as the same legal persona, they function subject to a change in their status. [9] What is the effect of liquidation on the companies and their employees? During the hearing Adv Rautenbach (with him Adv Nourse) for the applicant and Adv Cassim SC (with him Adv Van As) for the respondents were in agreement that the employment relationship continued even after liquidation. After reserving judgment I invited counsel to comment on the legal effect of s 339 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 read with s 38 of the Insolvency Act 24 of Both sets of counsel stand their ground. [10] On behalf of the applicant reference is made to the powers of a liquidator in s 367 of the Companies Act. The point is made that various section of the Insolvency Act is made applicable but not s 38. It is also pointed out that should the liquidator decide to continue with the business of the company he or she would not be able to do so without a workforce. It is submitted that should the liquidator decide that the workforce should be dismissed this must be done in terms of s 189 of the Labour Relations Act. [11] The contention on behalf of the respondents are in similar vein. It is submitted that although the contract of employment terminates on the insolvency of a natural person, in the case of a company the power is vested in the liquidator to take a decision to carry on or discontinue any part of the business of the company insofar as it may be beneficial for the winding up of the company. The respondents agree, with the applicants, that if the liquidator wishes to terminate the services of the workforce he or she must comply with s 189 of the Labour Relations Act.
4 [12] The respondents nevertheless submit that the application is premature and can only be launched once the High Court has granted an order, a liquidator is appointed and the liquidator fails to comply with s 189 of the Act. In the alternative the respondents contend that if s 38 applies there is an alternative remedy. The employees may claim compensation in terms of s 189 of the Labour Relations Act. Because of this alternative remedy the other requirements for an interdict are not met. [13] Wallis Labour and Employment Law states in para 30 that the insolvency of the employer automatically terminates the contract of employment. See s 38 of the Insolvency Act of He adds: The relevant provisions of the insolvency Act also apply where the employer is a company or close corporation which is wound up and refers in a footnote to s 339 of the Companies Act. The position in the text is too broadly stated. Section 339 provides: In the winding up of a company unable to pay its debts the provisions of the law relating to insolvency shall, in so far as they are applicable, be applied mutatis mutandis in respect of any matter not specifically provided for by this act. [14] Allen Liversage n Ondersoek na die toepassing van artikel 38 van die Insolvensie Wet 24 van 1936" 13 et seq (unpublished, LLM dissertation, Unisa, 1993) examines the effect of s 339 of the Companies Act and finds that in the case of the winding up of a company unable to pay its debts that s 38 of the Insolvency Act is applicable. He says at 23; In gevalle waar die onvermoë van die maatskappy om sy skulde te betaal wel die oorsaak van likwidasie is, behoort artikel 339 van die Maatskappywet aanwending te vind, met die gevolg dat artikel 38 van die Insolvensiewet toegepas kan word. In so n geval sal die dienskontrak automaties by die likwidasie deur die hof beëindig word en sal die werknemer oor n eis vir skadevergoeding beskik weens die beëindiging van sy kontrak alvorens dit afgeloop het. [15] As to when it must be determined whether a company is unable to pay its debts see Taylor and Steyn NNO v Koekemoer 1982 (1) SA 374 (T) at 378B.
5 [16] Where, as here, the other companies may be wound up and are unable to pay their debts the provisions of the Insolvency Act applies in so far as they are applicable. The Insolvency Act deals with contracts of lease in s 37 (contracts of service are, according to our common law, a special type of contract of lease or hire) and with contracts of service in s 38. It would therefore follow that the provisions of s 38 are made applicable by s 339. [17] If s 339 is not applicable (I think on the presents facts it would be) then s 37 applies as incorporated into the law of liquidation by virtue of s 367(4)(g) of the Companies Act of How should s 37 be read in this context? Liversage at 23 is of the view that the contract of service must be treated as a lease. It is unnecessary for me to decide this. [18] On the facts of this case s 38 of the Insolvency Act will be applicable should the application for liquidation which is attached to the papers be granted. [19] A further question now arises. Section 210 of the Labour Relations Act of 1995 provides: If any conflict, relating to the matters dealt with in this Act, arises between this Act and the provisions of any other law save the Constitution or any Act expressly amending this Act, the provisions of this Act will prevail. [20] For the position regarding the industrial court acting in terms of the Labour Relations Act 28 of 1956 see Liversage at and Wallis at para 30. However, as far as the present Labour Relations Act is concerned I do not think that there is any conflict between it and the Insolvency Act. The Labour Relations Act is silent on the termination of an employment contract on the grounds of insolvency. It does not deal with the fairness of such a termination. Cf English law which tends to regard a dismissal consequent upon a liquidation as fair. See Fox Bros (Clothes) Ltd v Bryant [1979] ICR 64, [1978] IRLR 485 (EAT) in Woods and Smith Industrial Law 4th ed at 197.
6 [21] The liquidation of the other companieswill terminate the contract of employment between them and their employees. The employees have a claim for damages but nothing more. This court cannot interdict the ipso jure termination of employment of employees. Moreover the threat is not a threat; on my view it is an accurate statement of the law. [22] In any event I am firmly of the view that the reach of the Labour Relations Act of 1995 halts once insolvency enters the picture. Thereafter the law of insolvency, administered in this instance, by the High Court, takes over. I do not believe that this court may make an order which will come into effect on the insolvency of an employer. [23] In the premises the application is dismissed with costs including the costs of two counsel. SIGNED AND DATED AT PRETORIA THIS 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER A A Landman Judge of the Labour Court Date of hearing: 7 October 1998 Date of judgment: 10 October 1998 For the applicant: Adv Rautenbach (with him Adv Nourse) instructed by Ntuli Noble and Spoor For the respondents: Leppan Adv Cassim SC (with him Adv Van As) instructed by Beech Attorneys
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN Case No. DA 14/2000 THE NATIONAL UNION OF LEATHER WORKERS. H BARNARD N.O. and G PERRY N.O.
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN Case No. DA 14/2000 In the matter between THE NATIONAL UNION OF LEATHER WORKERS Appellant and H BARNARD N.O. and G PERRY N.O. Respondent JUDGMENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG CASE No. A5053/09 SGHC CASE No. 29786/08 Reportable in: SAFLII, JDR (Juta) and JOL (LexisNexis) only DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case number : 141/05 Reportable In the matter between : L N SACKSTEIN NO in his capacity as liquidator of TSUMEB CORPORATION LIMITED (in liquidation) APPELLANT
More informationHELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JS 546/2005. CHEMICAL, ENERGY, PAPER, PRINTING, WOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION Applicant
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JS 546/2005 In the matter between: CHEMICAL, ENERGY, PAPER, PRINTING, WOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION Applicant and LT CORDERO First Respondent
More informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG Case Nos. A5022/2011 (Appeal case number) 34417/201009 (Motion Court case number) DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG SEA SPIRIT TRADING 162 CC T/A PALEDI GREENVILLE TRADING 543 CC T/A PALEDI TOPS
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case no: JA47/2017 In matter between SPAR GROUP LIMITED Appellant and SEA SPIRIT TRADING 162 CC T/A PALEDI GREENVILLE TRADING 543 CC
More informationSOUTH AFRICAN TRANSPORT AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION Appellant. ADT SECURITY (PTY) LTD Respondent JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) Case No.: JA 48/08 SOUTH AFRICAN TRANSPORT AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION Appellant And ADT SECURITY (PTY) LTD Respondent JUDGMENT DAVIS JA:
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN) INSPEKTEX MMAMAILE CONSTRUCTION & FIRE PROOFING (PTY) LIMITED JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN) CASE NO J1264/08 In the matter between: INSPEKTEX MMAMAILE CONSTRUCTION & FIRE PROOFING (PTY) LIMITED Applicant and JACOBUS COETZEE JACOBUS COETZEE
More informationIn the matter between NOKENG TSA TAEMANE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First Applicant
BEGIN DEUR 'N "HEADER" TE MAAK Sneller Verbatim/HVR IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS227/03 2003-07-14 In the matter between NOKENG TSA TAEMANE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First Applicant
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) Case no: JA17/98. In the matter between SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL SECURITY.
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) Case no: JA17/98 In the matter between SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL SECURITY Appellant EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION and TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN In the matter between: CASE NO J 1316/10 DIGISTICS (PTY) LTD Applicant And SOUTH AFRICAN TRANSPORT AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION ERENS MASHEGO & OTHERS
More informationJ T THEART COPPERSUN (PTY) LTD. Attorneys for the appellants : R P Totos Attorneys (Mr R P Totos)
REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: CASE NO: A 99/2008 J T THEART COPPERSUN (PTY) LTD 1 st Appellant 2 nd Appellant v DEON MINNAAR
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) : A22/2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Appeal No. : A22/2005 In the appeal between: MAIM GAMUR (PTY) LTD Appellant and AFGRI OPERATIONS LIMITED (previous OTK Ltd) Respondent
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT CORNELIUS JOHANNES ALEXANDER LOURENS
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: 566/2016 In the matter between: CORNELIUS JOHANNES ALEXANDER LOURENS APPELLANT and PREMIER OF THE FREE STATE PROVINCE PAN SOUTH
More informationJUDGMENT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape Division) Case no: 1552/2006. Date Heard: 30/03/07 Date Delivered: 24/08/07
Circulate to Magistrates: Yes / No Reportable: Yes / No Circulate to Judges: Yes / No IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape Division) Date Heard: 30/03/07 Date Delivered: 24/08/07 Case no: 1552/2006
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO A5030/2012 (1) REPORTABLE: No (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No (3) REVISED... DATE... SIGNATURE In the matter between ERNST PHILIP
More informationEASTERN CAPE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION JUDGMENT
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA Case no. CA&R14/18 Date heard: 22/6/18 Date delivered: 3/7/18 Not reportable In the matter between: PELEKA SITYATA Appellant and
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG IMPERIAL CARGO SOLUTIONS. First Respondent
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case no: JA63/2016 IMPERIAL CARGO SOLUTIONS Appellant and SATAWU First Respondent INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENTS LISTED IN ANNEXURE A TO THE
More informationJUDGMENT. [1] What is the effect on the employment of an employee when her old employer
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG 63/98 CASE NO : JA In the matter between : FOODGRO, a division of LEISURENET LIMITED Appellant (Respondent in the court a quo) and CAROL
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG BARLOWORLD TRANSPORT (PTY) LTD. Second Respondent
1 THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Not Reportable Case no: J2967/16 BARLOWORLD TRANSPORT (PTY) LTD Applicant and UNITRANS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD First Respondent
More informationIn the application between: Case no: A 166/2012
In the application between: Case no: A 166/2012 DEREK FREEMANTLE PUMA SPORT DISTRIBUTORS (PTY) LTD First Appellant Second Appellant v ADIDAS (SOUTH AFRICA) (PTY) LTD Respondent Court: Griesel, Yekisoet
More informationKEMP v SANTAM INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER 1975 (2) SA 329 (C)
KEMP v SANTAM INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER 1975 (2) SA 329 (C) Citation Court Judge 1975 (2) SA 329 (C) Cape Provincial Division Diemont J Heard November 5, 1974; November 6, 1974; December 11, 1974; December
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG Case no: JA34/2002 RUSTENBURG BASE METAL REFINERS (PTY)LTD APPELLANT
1 IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG Case no: JA34/2002 In the matter between:- RUSTENBURG BASE METAL REFINERS (PTY)LTD APPELLANT PRECIOUS METALS REFINERS (PTY)LTD APPELLANT
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO : J3341/98
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO : J3341/98 In the matter between : NATIONAL UNION OF METAL WORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA SHEZI, E C First Applicant Second Applicant and SUCCESS
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 143/2012 In the matter between: RANK SHARP SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD and ROBIN
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JA 47/2003 C F POTTERILL AND FIFTEEN OTHERS
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JA 47/2003 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN C F POTTERILL AND FIFTEEN OTHERS APPELLANTS AND THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES LIMITED. DAVID WOOLFREY First Respondent
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN Case no: C 407/98 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES LIMITED Applicant BEER DIVISION AND DAVID WOOLFREY First Respondent FOOD AND ALLIED
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG SVA SECURITY (PTY) LIMITED
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG In the matter between Reportable Case no: J 720/17 SVA SECURITY (PTY) LIMITED Applicant and MAKRO (PTY) LIMITED A DIVISION OF MASSMART FIDELITY SECURITY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationt/a CELLARS DRANKWINKEL J U D G M E N T DELIVERED ON 20 AUGUST 2002
Sneller Verbatim/idm IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS201/01 2002-08-15 In the matter between CELESTE AVRIL CORNS Applicant and ADELKLOOF DRANKWINKEL C.C. t/a CELLARS DRANKWINKEL
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 376/2012 In the matter between: Deon DU RANDT Applicant and ULTRAMAT SOUTH
More informationJ2594/15-avs 1 JUDGMENT [ ] [14:42-14:48] Ex-Tempore
J2594/15-avs 1 JUDGMENT IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: J2594/15 DATE: 2016-01-12 In the matter between LESIBA MASALESA Applicant and KHUPHULANANI TRAINING INSTITUTE DELL
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. Held in Johannesburg
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Held in Johannesburg LABOUR APPEAL COURT: Case No: JA15/98 Case No: JR1/98 MINISTER OF LABOUR appellant First THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF LABOUR Second appellant
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable / not Reportable Case no: JR657/2015 PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION First Applicant NATIONAL UNION OF PUBLIC SERVICE AND ALLIED WORKERS Second Applicant
More information(APPELLATE DIVISION) THE MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS GREGORY MANGENA AND 25 OTHERS. HOEXTER, KUMLEBEN, GOLDSTONE, JJA et NICHOLAS, HOWIE, AJJA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) CASE NO 708/89 In the matter between THE MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS Appellant and GREGORY MANGENA AND 25 OTHERS Respondent CORAM: HOEXTER, KUMLEBEN,
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. Held at Johannesburg. Multivision Respondent. Judgment
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Held at Johannesburg Appeal case no.:ja 73/98 Case no.:nh11/2/24237 In the matter between: Nicholas Antony Lambert Williams Appellant and Sign Company Sign writers
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN COMMUNICATION WORKERS UNION ( CWU )
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN Reportable Case no: DA10/13 In the matter between: COMMUNICATION WORKERS UNION ( CWU ) K PILLAY AND OTHERS First Appellant Second
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable CASE NO: 494/07 In the matter between : LUVUYO MANELI Appellant and THE STATE Respondent Before: STREICHER, HEHER JJA & KGOMO AJA
More informationIN THE TRIBUNAL OF THE PENSION FUNDS ADJUDICATOR
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF THE PENSION FUNDS ADJUDICATOR In the complaint between: CASE NO: PFA/FS/3860/01/NJ M M I Taljaard Complainant and Haggie Pension Fund Alexander Forbes Retirement Fund W L Taljaard First
More informationThe applicant is not a director and or shareholder of the fourth respondent.
Muller NO v Muller NO 2014 JDR 2232 (GP) Citation 2014 JDR 2232 (GP) Court Gauteng Division, Pretoria Case no 50560/2013 Judge Lephoko AJ Heard July 28, 2014 Judgment October 24, 2014 Appellant/ Lerna
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 226/16 In the matter between: Pieter Wynand CONRADIE Applicant and VAAL
More informationBusiness Partners Ltd Applicant. Westville Manor House (Pty) Ltd Respondent. Auction Alliance KwaZulu-Natal(Pty) Ltd Applicant
In the KwaZulu-Natal High Court, Durban Republic of South Africa Case No : 1100/2008 In the matter between : Business Partners Ltd Applicant and Westville Manor House (Pty) Ltd Respondent Case No : 10402/2010
More informationNOTES / AANTEKENINGE
NOTES / AANTEKENINGE SOME NOTABLE DIVERGENCES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOUTH AFRICAN AND NAMIBIAN INSOLVENCY LAW 1 Introduction It is a well-known fact that the legal systems of South Africa and Namibia,
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT LOURENS WEPENER VAN REENEN
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT REPORTABLE Case No: 623/12 In the matter between: LOURENS WEPENER VAN REENEN Appellant and SANTAM LIMITED Respondent Neutral citation: Van Reenen v
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT DAVID WALLACE ZIETSMAN MULTICHOICE AFRICA (PTY) SECOND RESPONDENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 771/2010 In the matter between: DAVID WALLACE ZIETSMAN APPELLANT and ELECTRONIC MEDIA NETWORK LIMITED MULTICHOICE AFRICA (PTY) LIMITED FIRST
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH Reportable Case no: PA2/14 In the matter between: MAWETHU CIVILS (PTY) LTD MAWETHU PLANT (PTY) LTD First Appellant Second Appellant and NATIONAL
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR1342/15 In the matter between: AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Applicant and SILAS RAMASHOWANA N.O. COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION
More information1] This is an urgent application brought in terms of Rule 8 of the Rules of the
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: J1245/09 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION LIMITED APPLICANT AND COMMUNICATION WORKERS UNION 1 ST RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION) DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE CASE NO: 20358/08 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO (3) REVISED: YES
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: 569/2015 In the matter between: GOLDEN DIVIDEND 339 (PTY) LTD ETIENNE NAUDE NO FIRST APPELLANT SECOND APPELLANT And ABSA BANK
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case Nos: JR1061-2007 In the matter between: SAMANCOR LIMITED Applicant and NUM obo MARIFI JOHANNES MALOMA First Respondent TAXING MASTER, LABOUR
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA THE OCCUPIERS OF SARATOGA AVENUE BLUE MOONLIGHT PROPERTIES 39 (PTY) LTD REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 12/12 [2012] ZACC 9 THE OCCUPIERS OF SARATOGA AVENUE Applicant and CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALTY BLUE MOONLIGHT PROPERTIES
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Case no: J 479-16 BOTSELO HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD First Applicant and NATIONAL TRANSPORT MOVEMENT MEMBERS
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. First Applicant. Second and further Applicants. RAND AIRPORT MANAGEMENT COMPANY First Respondent
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO: JS 958 / 02 First Applicant Second and further Applicants and RAND AIRPORT MANAGEMENT COMPANY First Respondent NT (PTY) LTD Second Respondent CAPITAL AIR SECURITY
More informationIN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG) In the matter between SANTINO PUBLISHERS CC
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO A5001/2009 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES (3) REVISED. 12 June 2009 FHD van Oosten DATE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) MAHLANGU MAFIKA : Applicant. THE STATE : Respondent
CA 137/2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: MAHLANGU MAFIKA : Applicant and THE STATE : Respondent APPLICATION MAFIKENG HENDRICKS AJ DATE OF
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. THOMAS NICHOLAS JOHN STEYNBERG Appellant. WENHANDEL 4 (PTY) LIMITED Respondent
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT CASE NO 103/06 Not reportable In the matter between: PROPFOKUS 49 (PTY) LIMITED THOMAS NICHOLAS JOHN STEYNBERG Appellant DAVID JOHANNES STEYNBERG
More information[1] This application concerns four young cheetahs identified by. the inordinately long microchip identification number set out
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the case between: Case No.: 3192/2007 SAFARI ADVENTURES CO. LTD Applicant and TREVOR CRAIG OERTEL SA NATIONAL BIRD OF PREY CENTRE
More informationTHE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS TSHIBVUMO PHANUEL CORNWELL TSHAVHUNGWA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 328/08 THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS LEONARD FRANK McCARTHY First Appellant Second Appellant and TSHIBVUMO PHANUEL
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
In the matter between: THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 1249/17 FIRSTRAND BANK LTD APPELLANT and NEDBANK LTD RESPONDENT Neutral citation: FirstRand Bank Ltd v Nedbank
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) CASE NO: In the appeal of INCLEDON (WELKOM) (PTY) LTD APPELLANT and QWAQWA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD RESPONDENT Coram: HOEXTER, VAN HEERDEN et
More informationGUNTER v COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER (2009) 30 ILJ 2341 (O) ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION (A104/2008) February 23, 2009; March 5, 2009 A
GUNTER v COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER (2009) 30 ILJ 2341 (O) ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION (A104/2008) February 23, 2009; March 5, 2009 A Before and MOCUMIE J Flynote : Sleutelwoorde Compensation
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: REPORTABLE CASE NO: 480/2002 KEVIN & LASIA PROPERTY INVESTMENTS CC ABSA BANK LIMITED FIRST APPELLANT SECOND APPELLANT and ANTON ROOS N.O.
More information[1] The Applicant, an employer s organisation duly registered in terms of Section 96
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case No. J240/03 In the matter between : NATIONAL EMPLOYER S FORUM Applicant And The Minister of Labour 1 st Respondent THE REGISTRAR OF LABOUR
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: 4572/2015 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES (3) REVISED:
More informationIn the High Court of South Africa KwaZulu-Natal Division, Pietermaritzburg. Case No :14300/15. In the matter between :
In the High Court of South Africa KwaZulu-Natal Division, Pietermaritzburg Case No :14300/15 In the matter between : Move on Up 104 CC Kwikcorp 1 CC t/a Leon Motors NCL Moola s (Pty) Ltd t/a Newcastle
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Not Reportable Case No: 20264/2014 ABSA BANK LTD APPELLANT And ETIENNE JACQUES NAUDE N.O. LOUIS PASTEUR INVESTMENTS LIMITED LOUIS
More informationKEM-LIN FASHIONS CC Appellant
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Held in Johannesburg Case No: DA 1015/99 In the matter between: KEM-LIN FASHIONS CC Appellant and C BRUNTON 1 ST Respondent BARGAINING COUNCIL FOR THE CLOTHING
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Case no: JA90/2013 Not Reportable In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS TAOLE ELIAS MOHLALISI First Appellant
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT BROMPTON COURT BODY CORPORATE SS119/2006 CHRISTINA FUNDISWA KHUMALO
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 398/2017 In the matter between: BROMPTON COURT BODY CORPORATE SS119/2006 APPELLANT and CHRISTINA FUNDISWA KHUMALO RESPONDENT Neutral
More informationv S A POST OFFICE. The Post Office was not in a posi-
CASE NO. P671/00 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT PORT ELIZABETH DATE 9.11.2000 In the matter between: DEON MACKAY Applicant and MINNAAR NIEHAUS N O First respondent COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. Sitting in Cape Town. Case No : C639/98. In the matter between : NATIONAL MANUFACTURED FIBRES.
1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Sitting in Cape Town Case No : C639/98 In the matter between : NATIONAL MANUFACTURED FIBRES SANS FIBRES (Pty) Ltd First Applicant Second Applicant and COMMISSIONER
More informationCASE NO: 554/90 AND A B BRICKWORKS (PTY) LTD VAN COLLER, AJA :
CASE NO: 554/90 JACOBUS ALENSON APPELLANT AND A B BRICKWORKS (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT VAN COLLER, AJA : CASE NO: 554/90 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between: JACOBUS
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO: A 100/2008 DATE:26/08/2011 REPORTABLE In the matter between LEPHOI MOREMOHOLO APPELLANT and THE STATE RESPONDENT Criminal
More informationGOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 228/2015 Date heard: 30 July 2015 Date delivered: 4 August 2015 In the matter between NOMALUNGISA MPOFU Applicant
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT SWISSPORT (SOUTH AFRICA) (PTY) LTD. EMPLOYEES OF THE APPLICANT AND Further
1 THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J1940/15 In the matter between: SWISSPORT (SOUTH AFRICA) (PTY) LTD Applicant And NATIONAL TRANSPORT UNION EMPLOYEES OF
More informationREPORTABLE Case No: 382/99. In the matter between: PEREGRINE GROUP (PTY) LTD. and. PEREGRINE HOLDINGS LTD and OTHERS Respondents
REPORTABLE Case No: 382/99 In the matter between: PEREGRINE GROUP (PTY) LTD and OTHERS Appellants and PEREGRINE HOLDINGS LTD and OTHERS Respondents Coram: HEFER ACJ, HARMS AND NAVSA JJA Heard: 7 MAY 2001
More informationIn The Supreme Court Of Appeal Of South Africa
In The Supreme Court Of Appeal Of South Africa In the matter between Case No 126/2001 REPORTABLE Phillipus Petrus Nicolaas Coetzee Appellant and Attorneys Insurance Indemnity Fund Respondent Before: Nienaber,
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT FRESHVEST INVESTMENTS (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED MARABENG (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case No: 1030/2015 In the matter between: FRESHVEST INVESTMENTS (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED APPELLANT and MARABENG (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED RESPONDENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG PROVINCIAL
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the appeal between: Appeal No. : A105/2009 DRICKY MORKEL Appellant and IRIS THORNHILL First Respondent CORAM: HANCKE, J et EBRAHIM, J et
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG ZIETSMAN, A J FIRST APPLICANT DE VILLIERS J P D SECOND APPLICANT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: CASE NUMBER: JS 614/06 ZIETSMAN, A J FIRST APPLICANT DE VILLIERS J P D SECOND APPLICANT VAN COLLIER, R THIRD APPLICANT AND
More informationSneller Verbatim/lks IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS749/03 J U D G M E N T
Sneller Verbatim/lks IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BRAAMFONTEIN 2005 05 17 CASE NO: JS749/03 In the matter between W W BOTHA Applicant and DU TOIT VREY & PARTNERS CC Respondent J U D G M E N T REVELAS,
More informationINTHE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG G4S CASH SOLUTIONS SA (PTY) LTD THE ROAD FREIGHT AND LOGISTICS INDUSTRY
INTHE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case no: JA51/15 In the matter between:- G4S CASH SOLUTIONS SA (PTY) LTD Appellant And MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (MTWU)
More information- 1 - MAUREEN JULIA RAMBADURSING JUDGMENT
- 1 - IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA REPORTABLE CASE NO. 13500/2010 In the matter between: A GRUNDLER N.O. APPLICANT and MAUREEN JULIA RAMBADURSING RESPONDENT JUDGMENT
More informationSAA Flight Deck Crew Provident Fund DETERMINATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 30M OF THE PENSION FUNDS ACT OF 1956
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF THE PENSION FUNDS ADJUDICATOR In the complaint between: CASE NO: PFA/GA/1304/00/NJ B Marais Complainant and SAA Flight Deck Crew Provident Fund Respondent DETERMINATION IN TERMS OF SECTION
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, DURBAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, DURBAN CASE NO: 9220/2015 In the matter between: HIMAL TUGH N.O. PRAVIN RAMJATHAN N.O. and SHAMEEN THAKUR RAJBANSI THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) UNREPORTABLE DATE: 29/05/2009 CASE NO: A440/2007 In the matter between: MARIA CATHARINA ALETTA SMIT Appellant And BENITA WILLERS Respondent
More informationINDUSTRIAL LAW JOURNAL MONTHLY PREVIEW
INDUSTRIAL LAW JOURNAL MONTHLY PREVIEW ISSUE 42 DECEMBER 2011 Dear Industrial Law Journal Subscriber, We take pleasure in presenting the December 2011 issue of the monthly Industrial Law Journal Preview,
More informationBeijing Arbitration Commission Arbitration Rules
ARBITRATION RULES Revised and adopted at the Fourth Meeting of the Sixth Session of the Beijing Arbitration Commission on July 9, 2014, and effective as of April 1, 2015 Address:16/F China Merchants Tower,No.118
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
In the matter between : THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable CASE NO: 514/2001 LOUISA DU PLESSIS Appellant and MARIANA PIENAAR NO NICO HENDRIK BOEZAART NO ABSA BANK LIMITED MASTER OF
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG TAX PAYERS ASSOCIATION KGETLENG RIVIER LOCAL MUNICIPALITY JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG CASE NO: CIV APP 5/2016 In the matter between: KOSTER, DERBY, SWARTRUGGENS TAX PAYERS ASSOCIATION APPELLANT and KGETLENG RIVIER LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 50730/2007 REPORTABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED...... In the matter between:
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG Case No. A5021/11 DATE:16/10/2011 REPORTABLE In the matter between: MR PHIRWA JACOB MAROGA Applicant and ESKOM HOLDINGS LIMITED First Respondent
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J856-17 In the matter between: CHIKANE ALBERT CHIKANE NATALIE ROSALIND GOVENDER First Applicant Second Applicant and MEC
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 50730/2007 REPORTABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED...... In the matter between:
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT BOUNDARY FINANCING LIMITED PROTEA PROPERTY HOLDINGS (PTY) LIMITED
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 597/07 BOUNDARY FINANCING LIMITED Appellant and PROTEA PROPERTY HOLDINGS (PTY) LIMITED Respondent Neutral citation: Boundary Financing
More information