INDUSTRIAL COURT OF SWAZILAND
In the matter between:
MR. SANDILE D
was brought by the applicant for an order in the following terms;
1. Granting applicant leave
to re-instate the matter on the court's roll.
2. Further and/or
is consequent to an order of the court made on 17/03/03. On this date
the matter was before the court. There was no appearance by both
parties on that day. The matter was removed from the roll. The court
ordered that the matter was not going to be re-instated without leave
of the court.
On the 30th
May 2005, the matter was before the court. In terms of the roll, it
was allocated two days being the 30th and 31st
May 2005. The court noted that the order of the court of 17/03/03 had
not been complied with. It became apparent therefore that the matter
was not properly before the court.
application therefore is in terms of the court order issued on
17/03/03 that the matter would not be re-instated without the leave
of the court.
must therefore give a valid and reasonable explanation why it did not
appear on 17/03/03.
application is founded upon the supporting affidavit of Sakhele
Hlophe and the confirmatory affidavit of Jabulani Maseko. There is no
Founding Affidavit by the applicant.
Maseko in his Confirmatory Affidavit says that he was the Attorney
handling the matter during the relevant period. He says he was not
aware that the matter was set down for trial on 17/03/03. He says on
03/03/03 he had filed a request for a date of hearing.
The request for
the date of hearing was indeed filed of record. It was filed in court
on 07/03/2003. There is evidence that it was received by the
respondent's Attorneys on 03/03/03. It is not clear what happened
thereafter. There is no evidence that the date was allocated by the
court's Registrar. It is not known to the court on what basis was the
matter placed before the court on 17/03/03.
From the court
record, it seems that both parties were not aware that the matter was
on the roll on 17/03/03 because there was also no appearance by the
If indeed the
date of 17/03/03 was allocated by the court's Registrar, there is no
indication that the parties were informed about it. The respondent in
its papers does not state or make any allegation that the applicant
was aware that the matter had been enrolled for the 17th March
2003, and that therefore the applicant was in willful default.
therefore will come to the conclusion that the explanation given why
the applicant did not appear on the 17th March 2003 is
valid and reasonable. It is therefore accepted by the court.
The court will
accordingly grant the application in terms of prayer 1 thereof.
No order as to
costs. The members agree.
ACTING JUDGE- INDUSTRIAL