Goldchip (Pvt) Ltd v Virginia Potgeiter and Others

The first to seventh respondents obtained a default judgment against the applicant at the Labour Court on 2 February 2022, confirming a ruling by the eighth respondent (Nyasha Faith Mangondo N.O). The applicant failed to attend the hearing and claimed it had not been served with the application. The applicant filed an application for rescission of the default judgment under Case LC/H/372/2022. Before the rescission application was finalized, the Sheriff of the High Court (ninth respondent) began execution proceedings. On 16 June 2022, writs were stamped by the Sheriff and property was seized and attached. The applicant then approached the High Court seeking an urgent stay of execution pending finalization of the rescission application. The applicant alleged it only learned of the default judgment when a third party informed their attorneys several days after the judgment was granted.

• Whether the application was properly before the High Court or whether the applicant should have first exhausted domestic remedies available under section 92C of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]
• Whether the applicant approached the court with unclean hands by misrepresenting material facts to the court
• Whether a stay of execution should be granted pending the rescission application

The matter was struck off the roll of urgent matters. No order as to costs was made.

Where a statute provides domestic remedies for dealing with a matter within the jurisdiction of a specialized tribunal (such as section 92C of the Labour Act empowering the Labour Court to suspend execution of its own orders pending rescission applications), an applicant must exhaust those remedies before approaching the High Court, even though the High Court possesses inherent jurisdiction. An applicant who materially misrepresents facts to the court or withholds vital information approaches the court with unclean hands and will not receive the court's assistance, regardless of the merits of the underlying claim.

The court observed that where an applicant seeks a stay of execution pending a rescission application, one would expect the applicant to attach the pending rescission application as part of the stay application to demonstrate prospects of success and show that they were not in willful default. The failure to do so may suggest the applicant is attempting to conceal unfavorable facts from the court. The court also noted that "several days" cannot reasonably be interpreted to mean merely two days, and such characterization amounts to a blatant lie.

This case reinforces important principles in South African and Zimbabwean jurisprudence regarding: (1) the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies provided by statute before approaching the High Court, particularly in specialized areas like labour law where statutory tribunals have specific powers; (2) the doctrine of unclean hands and the consequences of material misrepresentation to the court in urgent applications; and (3) the need for full and frank disclosure in urgent applications, particularly when seeking interim relief. The case serves as a warning that applicants who misrepresent facts or withhold material information risk having their applications dismissed regardless of the merits.