P E Bosman Transport Works Committee and Others v Piet Bosman Transport (Pty) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Wessels JA, Muller JA, Miller JA, Galgut AJA and Van Heerden AJA
• Judgment Date: 03 September 1980
• Citation: 1980 (4) SA 794 (A)
• Hearing Date: 03 September 1980
• Court: Appellate Division

Muller, JA.:

During June 1978 the present applicants and certain six other H persons applied on notice of motion to the Transvaal Provincial Division for a rule nisi calling on the respondent to show cause why"it should not be interdicted, restrained and prevented from dismissing its employees, or any one of them, from its employ or altering their terms or conditions of employment to their disadvantage or to the disadvantage of any one of them without just and lawful cause;"

It should be explained that the first applicant (P E Bosman Transport Works Committee) is a works committee established in terms of the Black Labour Relations Regulation Act 48 of 1953 as amended. The

Muller JA

second applicant (Transport and Allied Workers Union) is a voluntary association not registered by law. All the other applicants who joined in the application to the Transvaal Provincial Division are persons who are A or were employees of the respondent company and who are or were members of the said works committee and of the said union.

On 20 June 1978 the Transvaal Provincial Division granted a rule nisi as prayed which was to operate as a temporary interdict. Respondent thereafter filed a notice of intention to defend as well as a replying affidavit.

B After further affidavits and other documents were filed of record, the Transvaal Provincial Division heard argument without any evidence being led. On 18 August 1978 ELOFF J delivered judgment. [*] His judgment was to the effect that the joinder of four of the applicants, those applicants who have now come to this Court, was not proper in that they had no locus standi in the matter. In respect of the other applicants before the C Transvaal Provincial Division respondent's objection to their joinder in the proceedings was dismissed with costs and, in so far as they were concerned, the date of the rule nisi referred to above was extended and the matter postponed.

The four applicants who failed in the Court a quo are now before this Court.

D After hearing argument on 3 September 1980, this Court dismissed with costs an application by the applicants for condonation of

(a)

the late noting of appeal by them, and

(b)

the late filing of the record of appeal with the Registrar of this Court.

It should be mentioned that the applicants, in a supplementary E application, asked that, in so far as it may be necessary, there should also be condonation of any failure to comply with Rule 6 of the Rules of this Court with regard to security. Counsel for the applicants expressed the view in argument that condonation in that respect was indeed not necessary inasmuch as the applicants, on the very day that the appeal F record was lodged with the Registrar of this Court, informed the Registrar in writing through their attorneys that security had been entered into as agreed by the parties. A different view was expressed by counsel for the respondent. However, in view of the decision to which this Court came regarding the other application for condonation mentioned above, no view G need be expressed with regard to the compliance or non-compliance by the applicants with Rule 6.

I come now to state this Court's reasons for dismissing the application for condonation.

Although, as aforementioned, the judgment of the Court a quo was delivered on 18 August 1978 (an appeal, in terms of Rule 5 (1) of the Rules of this H Court, had therefore to be noted within 21 days from that date) notice of appeal to this Court was filed with the Registrar of this Court only on 12 December 1978.

And, although (in terms of Rule 5 (4) of the Rules of this Court) the record of appeal should have been lodged with the Registrar of this Court within three months of the judgment of the Court a quo, it was only lodged on 23 July 1979.

Muller JA

In July 1979 the applicants served and filed their application for condonation of the late filing of their notice of appeal and their late delivery to the Registrar of the record of appeal. In this document an A attempt is made to give some explanation for the applicants' non-compliance with the Rules. With regard to the late noting of appeal the explanation by the applicants for their delay is, in short, the following.

They first noted an appeal to the Transvaal Provincial...