Coin Security Group (Pty) Ltd v SA National Union for Security Officers and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: F H Grosskopf JA, Olivier JA, Scott JA, Plewman JA and Farlam AJA
• Judgment Date: 29 September 2000
• Citation: 2001 (2) SA 872 (SCA)
• Docket Number: 223/98
• Hearing Date: 08 September 2000
• Counsel: J A van der Westhuizen for the appellant. L Bozalek for the respondents.
• Court: Supreme Court of Appeal

Plewman JA:

[1] In this appeal counsel were, at the outset of the hearing and for reasons which will presently be made clear, required to address argument on the preliminary question of whether the appeal and I any order made thereon would, within the meaning of s 21A of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959, have any practical effect or result. After hearing argument on this issue the appeal was dismissed in terms of s 21A and appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. It was indicated when so ordering that the Court's reasons would be handed down later. The reasons follow. J

Plewman JA

[2] The manner in which this question arose is as follows. A The appeal is against an order made on the return day of a rule nisi discharging the rule by setting it aside. Appellant is a company carrying on business in the security industry providing guard services and an asset transfer service. The respondents were originally 55 persons employed by its asset transfer division and the registered trade union to which they belonged. Only some now remain B parties to the litigation. How this occurred and why only some are now involved is not relevant to the appeal.

[3] A dispute arose between appellant and respondents in January 1997. This led to a strike. Appellant contended (and contends) that this was an unprotected strike. In the course thereof certain of C the respondents unlawfully occupied appellant's premises. There were also incidents of assault and intimidation and a blockading of the entrance to appellant's premises. Appellant thereupon approached the Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division on an urgent basis and on 16 January 1997 obtained an order evicting the persons who had occupied its premises and coupled with this a rule nisi operating as D an interim interdict restraining respondents from committing or perpetrating further acts of the nature referred to above.

[4] Effect was given to the eviction order but the return day of the rule was extended by various orders (it seems by consent). The matter was finally argued in October 1997 and the judgment which is E appealed against was delivered on 31 October 1997 with the result indicated. The Court's order is not clear. It must have been intended to deal only with that part of the original order which was included in the rule nisi. The main point taken in opposition to the confirmation of the rule was a challenge to the jurisdiction of the F High Court on the ground that in terms of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 the Labour Court (unlike its predecessor - the industrial court) exercised an exclusive jurisdiction in matters of this nature. The objection was upheld by the Court a quo. It granted leave to appeal to this Court.

[5] It is also necessary to refer to certain other events (these G being common cause before this Court). Not only were those respondents who had unlawfully occupied appellant's premises evicted but on 17 January 1997 all the individual respondents were formally dismissed. This is referred to in the replying affidavits (eventually) filed in the matter. Thereafter the validity of...