South Africa: Labour Court Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Labour Court >> 2001 >> [2001] ZALC 21

| Noteup | LawCite

Da Fonseca v Roets In re: Roets Da Fonseca and Another (J2440/00) [2001] ZALC 21 (3 February 2001)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format

JUDGMENT


3


J2440/00-HVDM


Sneller Verbatim/HVDM

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: J2440/00

2001-02-02

In the matter between

JORGE MASCARENHAS DA FONSECA Applicant

and

MARILYN ESTELLE ROETS Respondent

In re:

ROETS, MARILYN ESTELLE Applicant

and

DE FONSECA JORGE M

T/A JEEBO TRADING AND RAND STRETCHERS 1st Respondent

DE FONSECA, MR J M 2ND Respondent

________________________________________________________________

J U D G M E N T

Delivered on 3 February 2001

________________________________________________________________

REVELAS J:

  1. In this matter the respondent obtained an award in her favour from the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration, (the CCMA). Subsequent thereto the second respondent as well as Jeebo Trading and Rand Stretchers did not comply therewith.


  1. The respondent then brought an application to have the award made an order of court and thereafter brought an application to join the second respondent, Mr JM De Fonseca as a party to the proceedings. Thereafter Mr De Fonseca (as the applicant) brought an application to have the order in terms of which he was joined as a party rescinded on the basis that it was obtained in his absence and without him being notified of the order. However, it was brought to my attention by the respondent, that is Mrs Roets, that the applicant had indeed been notified by someone not a party to these proceedings of the application and the date.

  2. A court is also entitled to meru moto join a party in that if it is of the opinion that the party would have an interest in the outcome thereof. There is also nothing to indicate any prospect of success on the part of the applicant to show that he was not part of the proceedings before the CCMA. He was absent but such evidence given, apparently on his behalf, he regards as the testimony of persons who had no authority to act on his behalf.

  3. In this regard it is of note that Mr De Fonseca, the applicant, did not ever bring an application for review of the award.

  4. He also did not ask for the award to be rescinded on the basis that it was obtained in his absence and without him being aware of it.

  1. Instead, he entered into correspondence with the CCMA and I gained the strong impression from the history of this file and the conduct of Mr De Fonseca is that he is attempting to escape the consequences of the arbitration hearing which was held.

  2. In the circumstances the application is dismissed with costs.


________________

E. Revelas

ON BEHALF OF M E ROETS: In person

ON BEHALF OF D DE FONSECA: Mr Pelser from,

Cyril Ziman & Associates

3