HELD AT MBABANE
CASE NO. 317/2002
In the matter between:
BUNYE BEMASWATI
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
…................................Applicant
and
WINILE DLAMINI
….............................................................................1st
Respondent
BARNABAS MAVUSO
…....................................................................2ND
Respondent
MAKHOSONKHE MAKHANYA
…........................................................3rd
Respondent
SAM MGABHI
…..................................................................................4th
Respondent
THEMBA MTSETFWA
…......................................................................5th
Respondent
CORAM:
P. R. DUNSEITH:
PRESIDENT
JOSIAH
YENDE: MEMBER
NICHOLAS
MANANA: MEMBER
FOR APPLICANT:
S. HLOPHE
FOR
RESPONDENTS: J.
MAVUSO
JUDGEMENT
-13/11/2007
1. The
court entered judgment against the Applicant on the 16th
July 2007 for payment of
the total sum of E28,176-85 to the Respondents.
2. The Applicant
tendered payment of the sum of E14,876-85, and withheld payment of
the balance of E13,300-00 on the basis that it was setting off
certain claims in respect of rentals owing to it by the 1st
and
2nd
Respondents.
3. The claim for rentals
is actually a claim for unliquidated damages for holding over. The
Applicant alleges that the 1st
and 2nd
Respondents did not
vacate their company accommodation after their employment with the
Applicant terminated, and the Applicant is entitled to be
compensated.
4. The Respondents
rejected the tender of part-payment and their representative issued
a writ of execution to recover payment of the full amount of the
judgment debt. The Applicant now applies to court for an order
setting aside the writ of execution and, pending final determination
of the application, an order that execution be stayed.
5. It is trite law than
an unliquidated claim for damages cannot be set off against a
judgement debt.
Colonial Government v
Bonner (1904) 21 SC 347. Janowsky v Payne 1989 (2) SA 562 (C)
6. The
Applicant must first obtain judgement on its claim before
set-off
may operate. There is no evidence that it has reported a
dispute in
terms of Part V111 of the Industrial Relations Act
2000 or that it
intends to institute legal proceedings in a court
of appropriate
jurisdiction. There is no legal basis disclosed
upon which the court
may prevent the Respondents from executing
upon the judgement which they have obtained.
7. The
application has no merit and cannot succeed.
The application is
dismissed with costs.
PETER
R. DUNSEITH
PRESIDENT
OF THE INDUSTRIAL COURT