SUMMARY

CIVIL PRACTICE: Request for further particulars for purposes of pleading or tender of settlement, in terms of Rule 25 of the High Court Rules- Principles applicable thereto considered and applied.

SUMMARY

The DG of the DCEO sought declaratory relief and reviewing, correcting and or setting aside of a decision to establish a tribunal in terms of s 4 of Act 5 of 1999 (as amended) on the ground he was not afforded pre-decision hearing; including his suspension pending the outcome of the tribunal’s proceedings. DG also attacked legal notice establishing tribunal on ground that its terms of reference vague. Absence of audi being common cause and the suspension having occurred whilst matter was sub judice, the High Court held that DG ought to have been afforded audi but that its absence was not unfair in view of the wide publicity arising from the litigation instituted by the DG and that the tribunal was proper forum to clear his name. High Court also held that legal notice creating tribunal not void because particulars of what is to be investigated not stated therein as those particulars apparent from show-cause letter to DG. Relief seeking to set aside establishment of tribunal therefore dismissed.  High Court also holding that suspension of DG whilst issue sub judice a usurpation of judicial function and therefore set it aside.

Held on appeal that High Court correctly concluded that terms of reference for tribunal not vague. Once high court found audi was denied the proper inquiry ought to have been if the discretionary remedies sought by DG were appropriate in the circumstances. Court holding that such remedies ought to have been denied the DG on facts of this case. Although suspension clearly unlawful, held that setting it aside not in public interest.

SUMMARY

Appellant representing himself; appeal struck off the roll because of failure to file certificate of leave to appeal; no costs order.

CIVIL PRACTICE: Functus officio- Judgment and an order of court brought for interpretation – Applicable principles considered and applied.

Motor vehicle accident – Negligence – Res ipsa loquitor – Application of – Res inter alios actae – Application of – Subrogation of Claim – Contigencies – calculations.

The Applicant had not sought leave to sue Respondents in terms of Section 180 of Companies` Act 1967 as previously pronounced by the Court of Appeal having applied after a number of years, Condonation was refused.

Civil Practice –Applicant launching an application for declaration that when she was dismissed as Independent Electoral Commission’s employee she had already resigned – the 1st and 2nd respondent raising a point in limine that this court does not have jurisdiction to deal with this matter as it falls within the jurisdiction of the  Labour Court – point in limine upheld.

Held:  Further that the policy consideration of creating a specialized labour dispute resolution channels have to be respected and not undermined by bringing matters which fall within the Labour Court in the High Court.

Held:  Further that even though the applicant has sought a declarator which the High Court in terms of the High Court Act, of 1978, is empowered to entertain, the court exercised its discretion to refuse to deal with the declarators as the prayers sought can competently be dealt with by the Labour Court.