IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH

AFRICA

Held at Braamfontein Case no

J869/00

In the matter between

Jakob Oosthuizen Wolfaardt First

applicant
Renier Nicolaas Jansen van Rensburg Second
applicant

and

The Industrial Development Corporation of

Respondent
JUDGMENT

LANDMAN J:

Introduction

1. The Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) is a South African

corporation which over the past 60 years has promoted, through
various means, industrial development and other initiatives in this
country.

2. Late in 1998 the IDC appreciated that its activities, which were

focussed for the main on mega projects, had changed. The IDC
*decided to look at its operational structure in order to ensure that
its resources were concentrated on its core business to enable it to
carry out its mandate. There was also concern about the costs of
doing business. The exercise was named “Alignment for
success”. A bosberaad (high level workshop or indaba) was held
at Sun City with the members of the board and the executive
committee (ie the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and head of
 departments) to which I shall refer as Exco. The upshot of this
meeting was that IDC could not conduct business as usual and
would have to realign itself to meet a changed economic
environment.

Restructuring Envisaged

3. On 26 February 1999, a notice from the CEO was distributed to all

employees informing them that:
4.
1.1. external consultants would be appointed to advise the
respondent on its restructuring;
1.2. tenders would be called for from consultants; and
1.3. five of respondent’s employees had been appointed to facilitate
the investigation by the consultants to be appointed and
oversee the implementation of their recommendations.

5. Bain­XKM was appointed as consultants to investigate IDC’s

structure, business practices and processes. All employees were
advised of this by notice on 19 March. A second bosberaad was
held at Mount Grace in April 1999 with Exco and other managers
attending. On 6 May the staff were informed that the consultants
had completed the fact­finding part of their assignment and that the
CEO would present a report­back to the employees on 11 May.
6. The CEO addressed a general meeting of employees on 11 May.
He presented the status of the investigations by means of
powerpoint slides during which employees were invited to and did
raise questions, which were clarified by the CEO and his
management team. The venue, the training centre, could only
accommodate 250 employees standing. There were about 600
employees working for IDC.

7. On 18 May the finishing touches to a plan entitled “Implementation

of the Restructuring Process of the Industrial Development
Corporation of SA Ltd” was done. This plan was based on an initial
draft prepared by Mr Van Rensburg the second applicant. Mr van
Rensburg assisted Mr Mathlape, the General Manager Human
Resources, in finalising the plan which Mr Mathlape was to present
to Exco. The plan was discussed by a meeting of the HR
Department. The relevant portions of the plan or proposal drafted
by Mr Van Rensburg read:

“4.1. Once approval has been obtained on the new structure, and the
process as set out in section three above has been completed,
all current job positions, below that of Managing Director/CEO,
will be done away with in order to facilitate the introduction of
the new structure...

5. The CEO will, within his discretion, appoint all employees at the
 level of General Manager. All General Managers, in
consultation with the CEO, will, within their discretion, appoint
the first line of Management reporting directly to them....

5.2. Selection process. All interviews for positions not filled by block
appointments must be conducted in such a manner so as to
comply with all relevant legislation and must be transparent and
objective. A period of one month will be allowed, after
finalisation of the new structure, for employees to apply for
positions not filled by way of block appointments....

5.2.4. The selection process will be conducted strictly according to fair

and objective criteria. The following will, however, be taken into
account:

• Relevant qualifications.
• The length of service with the Corporation.
• Experience and potential in a particular discipline.”

8. Bain­XKM made a presentation or presentations to Exco on 20

May. Mr Mathlape was present as a member of Exco. The minutes
seem to reflect two presentations. Mr Mathlape thinks there was
one presentation. Whatever the position, the presentation or
presentations by Bain­XKM dealt with “recommendations for the
 transformation and organisational restructuring of the Corporation”
and “issues surrounding the implementation of the
recommendations”. The restructuring part of the presentation
coincides with slides presented to staff on 11 May. The
implementation part of the presentation does not. It corresponds
with the “Roll­out plan” part of IDC’s slides presented to staff on 14
June. The slides bear the date “12 May 1999” which suggests that
they were created at least on that date.

9. On 21 May, Mr Mathlape presented HR’s plan, on which he and Mr

Van Rensburg had worked, to Exco. The final implementation plan
differed from Mr van Rensburg’s plan and that presented by Mr
Mathlape.

10.Bain­XKM presented their final report and recommendations to the

IDC’s Board on 28 May. The board, after debating it, approved it.
This report and recommendations were presented to all the
employees on 31 May. In his presentation to employees, the CEO
stated, inter alia, that:

1.1. the new structure as approved by respondent’s Board would

involve a possible reduction in the number of jobs and positions;
1.2. the respondent as structured was not generating enough
business and that its capacity to generate revenue was not
sufficient to off­set its costs;
1.3. recorded that information had previously been disclosed and
employees consulted;
1.4. senior positions would be filled first to enable the incumbents to
implement the new structure;
1.5. the process of consultation would continue and employees
should communicate their concerns through the respondent’s
human resources department.

11.The new plan essentially involved the creation of what may be

termed a new, restructured IDC with new posts. The new posts
were fewer those that which existed in, what may be termed, the
old IDC. The idea, as envisaged in the HR implementation plan
and that of Bain­XKM, was to roll out the appointments from the
top. The filling of posts would cascade down from the top. A
process which could be described as pouring old wine into new
skins. But as the new skins were smaller than the old, there would
be some plonk left over. This case is partly about who decides
what goes into the new skins and what happens to the plonk.

Restructuring Implemented

12.The process commenced with the appointment of the CEO (who

was the CEO of the old IDC). The appointment of the Executive
Team of five people and Heads of the Strategic Business Units
(SBU) and similar posts followed. No place could be found for
 three members of the old Exco team and they were subsequently
retrenched. The CEO issued a notice on 9 June to employees. The
notice of 9 June informed employees that:

1.1. SBU leaders and departmental heads would commence with

overseeing the implementation of the new structure;
1.2. it was proposed that positions in the new structure would be
filled by IDC employees selected on the basis of skills,
competencies, employment equity plan and by a series of
selection processes which might include interviews;
1.3. regrettably retrenchments were likely to follow in some cases;
and
1.4. as soon as it had been determined who of the employees would
be affected, appropriate consultations with such employees
would continue.
13.On 14 June, the IDC made a further presentation to all employees
explaining:

1.1. interim operational procedures necessitated by the on­going

restructuring process;
1.2. the staffing process which involved the selection and
assessment of possible appointees to new position by
departmental heads and the screening thereof by the human
resources department prior to appointment; and thereafter the
advertisement of all other positions to be filled after a process of
 screening by human resources and interviews of short listed
candidates.

14.An IDC committee was appointed to implement the new system.

The implementation team consisted of 11 persons under the
leadership of a Mr Paver. Included in this committee were Messrs
Seema, Mabena and Van Schalkwyk of HR. Staff were informed of
this on 10 June.

15.The process of populating the new structure was discussed with

staff at a meeting held on 14 June 1999. The process differed
slightly but importantly from the HR plan proposed by Mr Mathlape
The heads of SBU’s were permitted to propose individuals for
selected appointment to their units. These were to be done
according to the criteria previously mentioned. HR was to monitor
this to ensure objectivity and fairness. This system appears to be
the block system mentioned earlier. Any remaining vacancies were
to be advertised and other staff could apply for them. The timetable
for announcing further vacancies was to be 5 July. On 19 July
appointments would be made and confirmed. The appointments
would be announced on 26 July.

Restructuring HR

16.It is only necessary to consider the course of implementation

 process in the new and old HR departments as the present matter
relates only to two persons, Mr Van Rensburg and Mr Wolfaardt
who were employed in HR. It took place as follows:

1.1. The old HR department employed a total of 18 people, of whom

6 were “managers” (4 white males and 2 black males);

1.2. Mr Matlhape was appointed Executive Vice­President: Human

Resources and Support Services.

1.3. Mr Seema was appointed Head: Recruitment, Performance

Management and Industrial Relations. This post was an
amalgamation of the posts of Labour Relations (headed by Mr
Van Rensburg) and Recruitment and Performance Management
(headed by Mr Seema).

1.4. Mr Mabena was appointed Head of Training, Development and

Organisation Development. The post was an amalgamation of
the posts of Organisational Development and Transformation
(headed by Mr Wolfaardt) and Training Development (headed
by Mr Mabena).

1.5. Mr Van Schalkwyk, previously Head: Human Resources

Support and Remuneration was appointed to the new post of
the same name.
1.6. Block appointments were made. No posts in the new HR
department were advertised.

1.7. Mr Van Schalkwyk informally informed “his buddy” Mr Wolfaardt

on 17 June that all their jobs were safe. He did this because he
had sight of the new structure for HR. It provided for 18 posts
and there were 18 persons in the old HR department. He was
not to know that the applicants were not to be appointed in the
new HR department.

1.8. As at 28 June HR was, according to the business plan, still to

consist of 18 staff members as was the case with the old
department. The new posts included 1 junior consultant, 3
consultant and 3 senior consultant posts. This is according to
Mr Van Schalkwyk who was a member of the implementation
team. But Mr Mathlape advised him that these posts were for
the present. The future position was still under consideration.

1.9. On 30 June Exco reduced the 18 posts to 15. In effect the

consultants’ post (and a secretarial post which does not concern
this matter) fell away. They had not been filled. They had not
been advertised. This number of posts is confirmed in the slides
relating to the final recommendations which are dated 23 July.
1.10 Early in July or thereabout 70­80 positions were advertised.
None of them in the new HR Department. The applicants did not
apply for any post. Mr Van Rensburg had however explored the
possibility of working in the business unit of Mr Caligo. But this
was impractical. The applicants were not invited to apply for the
posts. It is common cause that none of the posts advertised
were suitable for them.

1.11. At the request of Mr Mathlape, Mr Van Schalkwyk approached

Mr Van Rensburg in his office to consult on retrenchment. Mr
Van Rensburg was upset and pre­empted him. Mr Van
Rensburg said just tell me how much I am to get and I am out of
here. The conversation lasted about 2 minutes.

1.12. On 23 July Mr Mathlape consulted with Mr Wolfaardt about the

“possible”or “inevitable” retrenchment. There is a dispute about
what was said. But there is no dispute that retrenchment was
the only subject of the discussion.

1.13. Both applicants were given letters of retrenchment on 23 July.

The letters are dated 27 July 1999.

1.14. Both applicants received retrenchment packages calculated on

the basis of 4 weeks pay per each completed year of service.
 Mr Wolfaardt received a severance package of R 430 615­20
and Mr Van Rensburg, R 244 887­24. These amounts exclude
statutory entitlements such as notice pay, leave pay and
accrued bonuses.

IDC’s Submissions

15. Mr Maserumule submitted that the law relating to this type of

retrenchment was the following. An employer intending to
restructure its operations by way of re­engineering jobs and
making all existing jobs redundant is required to show that:

1. A reasonable and commercial rationale for the decision to

restructure exists;
1.
2. the decision to restructure must be taken in a manner which is
fair to the employees to be retrenched;

3. the retrenchment of the employees is essential to achieve the

purpose of the restructuring;

4. the criteria for appointment to the new positions is fair and

justifiable;

5. the eventual selections for appointment are objectively

 justifiable.

See SA Mutual Life Assurance Society v Insurance &

Banking Staff Association C132/98 (LAC) (unreported) and
Alan Rycroft: “Corporate Restructuring and ‘applying for your
own job’” (2002) 23 ILJ 678­682 .

16. In Grieg Afrox Ltd (2001) 21 ILJ 2102 (ARB), Rycroft A

recognised that an employer may indeed declare all jobs
redundant, but cautioned against abusing this process to get rid
of non­performing employees. His subsequent article in the ILJ
referred to in the preceding paragraph pursued the same point.

17. For purposes of determining whether or not there has been

compliance with the provisions of section 189 of the LRA, “a
mechanical “checklist” kind of approach” is inappropriate,” see
Johnson & Johnson (Pty) Ltd v CWIU (1999) 20 ILJ 89
(LAC). The respondent elected to commence with the
consultation process from the very beginning of the
restructuring process, and in the absence of a trade union,
consulted with all employees as a collective, particularly
because the restructuring was of its entire operations. The final
one­to­one consultations could only take place at the very end
of the process, given what had preceded the decision to
retrench employees.
18. In Singh & Others v Mondi Paper (2000) 21 ILJ 966 (LC) at
972, De Villiers AJ suggested the following approach to
restructuring:

“[31] There may well be instance where the proposed restructuring or

reorganization if implemented will inevitably lead to the retrenchment of
the employees concerned. In such cases the employer is bound to consult
on the proposed restructuring and reorganization prior to prior to
implementation. But this is not the one of them. There is nothing in the
evidence to persuade me that as at July 1997, the respondent had an
intention, let alone had made up its mind, to retrench the applicants
despite the fact that their positions in the purchasing department had
become factually redundant….”

19. It was submitted that although retrenchments were not

inevitable when it embarked on its restructuring in February
1999, the IDC nonetheless consulted with all its employees who
were invited to and did make inputs into the proposed
restructuring, prior to any of the positions being declared
redundant.

20. Where an employee, by virtue of his/her proximity to the

decision making process has access to considerable
information about a restructuring process or is in a position to
acquire such information, that employee cannot be heard to say
 that she/he was not provided with sufficient information for
purposes of the consultation process. See Visser v Sanlam
(2001) 22 ILJ 666 (LAC) at 671G­I and Peach & Hatton
Heritage (Pty) Ltd v Neetling & Others (2001) 22 ILJ 1349
(LAC).

21. The applicants, as members of the HR department, were aware

of the restructuring process and had access to all the necessary
information. The second applicant, in particular, was even
tasked with the responsibility of drafting an implementation
procedure. In so doing, he envisaged and proposed that the
respondent had the right to decide on a new structure, that all
jobs had to be made redundant and that appointments at SBU
and departmental head level had to be made at the discretion of
the respondent. They cannot now be heard to say that they
were not consulted or that they did not have sufficient
information to enable them to take part in meaningful
consultations.

uation: fairness

22. I am of the opinion that there was a need for the IDC to
restructure and that it was perfectly entitled to undertake this
process. I also accept that the restructuring, when it was finally
 decided, would mean the loss of jobs. Indeed in the support
services, to which the applicants belonged, the staff numbers
would be reduced by from 284 to 195 employees; ie 89
employees would lose their jobs.

23. The key to this case is whether it is permissible for an employer

to make all the employees redundant and then select the
employees, albeit according to certain broad criteria, that it
wishes to retain. And with the result that the surplus redundant
employees who are dismissed would have been fairly
dismissed.

24. Mr Maserumule stressed, in the context of the discrimination

claim, but it is of general applicability, that the reference to
selection criteria for retrenchment in the context of this case is
misplaced. All employees, save for the CEO, became redundant
and all were candidates for retrenchment. This is what the
second applicant himself envisaged. Selection criteria were in
respect of the appointment of employees to positions in the new
structure. Mr Maserumule continued: “Employees were
selected for retrenchment using one and only one criteria:
failure to be appointed to a position in the new structure.
This criteria was fair and applied to all employees who were
retrenched, and not just the applicants.” (Original emphasis.)
25. Two points need to be made. The first is that advanced by Prof
Rycroft namely that the employer must not use the restructuring
as an exercise to dismiss employees on a no­fault basis where
the employer cannot dismiss them by reason of misconduct or
incapacity. This does not apply only where the employer uses
restructuring as a sham or stratagem but also where the
employer cannot show that the non­employment is fair, eg
where the employees are not afforded an opportunity to deal
with perceptions of their incapacity.

26. The second point which should be made, which Prof Rycroft
touches on, is that it should not be easier to retrench an
employee where restructuring is involved. I would add that a
retrenchment following a process of restructuring whereby an
employee applies for his or her own job must be closely
scrutinised because it ignores, sometimes unconsciously, that
an existing employee enjoys job security which will be protected
especially against no­fault terminations. But placing an
employee in the position of an applicant for a job, or worse,
merely on a waiting list, creates a supplicant of the employee.

27. I am mindful that my sister Pillay J has ruled in Clive Naicker v

Q Data Consulting (2002) 23 ILJ 730 (LC) that a dismissal
following on an unsuccessful application for one’s own job can
be fair. The head note states that the employee, Mr Naicker,
 was employed in the information technology industry at one of
two client service centres. His employer decided, for pressing
financial reasons, to restructure the centre. After consultation, it
was proposed that all affected employees would be invited to
apply for any of the positions in a remodelled service centre.
The employee duly applied but was unsuccessful. The court
approved the employer’s decision to invite all affected
employees to apply for positions in the restructured service
centre. This was a deviation from the LIFO principle.

28. This approach was said to be fair because survival in the

information technology industry requires employees to
continually keep abreast of new technology and software
development. Employees have to consistently re­skill
themselves to remain relevant to the organisation. The court
was of the opinion that every employee, long­serving and newly
employed, would be able to compete. A long­serving employee
who had constantly renewed his or her skills would not be at a
disadvantage when competing with newly qualified recruits.
Such an approach was held to be rational as regards the
information technology industry from a commercial and sociol­
economic perspective. This was so, inter alia, because the
employer retains and rewards employees who have expended
time and energy to keep abreast of developments.
29. This case is distinguishable from the present one. IDC did not
invite its employees to compete for positions in the new IDC.
Rather the new management handpicked the key staff and then
also made block appointments.

30. I am of the opinion that the process of filling the posts in the
new IDC was open to the charge of arbitrariness. The process
denied existing employees the right to present facts in support
of their retention. It was inherently flawed. So much so that it
could lead to the unfair dismissal of existing employees.

31. When it comes to selection the procedure was simply a choice

made by management. The procedure and selection criteria
remind one of schoolboys picking a team by calling out names
until the less desirable players are left and discarded or
accepted reluctantly. This is not objective. It is probably unfair.
Indeed Mr Mathlape said that he did not need to interview his
staff for positions in the new IDC; he knew what they could do.

32. Mr Van Rensburg, and the HR department generally, designed

a process which they believed would result in a fair selection of
“new” employees. The obverse effect would be that surplus
employees would be channelled in the direction of the door
labelled “EXIT”. It seems unfair that the HR staff, who designed
this process with a view that it was fair for their colleagues,
 should be able to complain about it when they were subjected to
it.

33. Some of the adjustments to the IDC implementation plan were

not foreshadowed by Mr Van Rensburg and his colleagues. The
length of service with the IDC and the employment equity plan
are examples.

34. I accept that Mr Van Rensburg can only complain about his
non­selection for two posts. The post of Head Recruitment,
Performance, Management and Industrial Relations and the
post of IR consultant. Mr Van Rensburg was not interviewed for
the post of Head. This was in accordance with the system to
which he had made a contribution. The new post of IR
consultant stands on a slightly different footing.

35. As far as Mr Wolfaardt is concerned he was not considered for

the post of Head of Training Development and Organisation
Development nor the senior consultant post.

36. There was provision for a position of consultant under the

department headed by Mr Kwena Seema. But, said Mr
Mathlape, this was not a suitable alternative for the applicants
because first, it was a junior position that would have entailed a
salary cut in excess of R100 000 and secondly, it was meant for
 a person with recruitment and performance management skills,
which neither applicants had.

37. There was also another position for a senior consultant under
Vusi Mabena’s department, but it was also not a suitable
alternative position for either applicants because it was also a
junior position that would require a salary cut in excess of R 100
000 and secondly, was meant for a person who had a
competency in financial training, which the applicants did not
have.

38. These consultant posts were not advertised. This means that Mr
Van Rensburg and Mr Wolfaardt were not allowed an
opportunity to say whether it was feasible to appoint them and
whether they would accept R100 000 pa less than they had
been earning, or to bargain for more, or persuade the IDC to
redline the post, or to outsource the post at some future time,
as was envisaged by IDC, or to let them occupy the post for a
period until it was outsourced. The applicants would have been
able to respond to the IDC’s equity policy and in particular the
absence of a plan. The applicants would also have been told of
the target of 40% black employees about which they were
unaware. There may be other topics and issues. Who can say?
No one can say. The opportunity was denied to them. The
opportunity to apply for these posts and an interview could also
 have led to the exploration of other avenues. This failure means
that the dismissal of the applicants were so procedurally unfair
that they are also substantively unfair. See Ellias v Germiston
Uitgewers (Pty) Ltd t/a Evalulab (1998) 19 ILJ 314 (LC) and
Chetty v Scott Select­a­Shoe (1998) 19 ILJ 1465 (LC).

39. Mr Wolfaardt was in disfavour with Mr Mathlape. He had been

charged and found only technically guilty of misconduct in
connection with the west coast project. A warning or reprimand
was issued to him. But a reading of the finding tends to show
that Mr Wolfaardt’s management performance was less than
optimum. It may be that the IDC could have discharged him for
poor performance. But it did not do so. There is sufficient
evidence pointing to IDC’s unhappiness with Mr Wolfaardt in
regard to the west coast project. In the light of IDC’s process for
selecting staff for the new IDC, I find that the IDC has not shown
that Mr Wolfaardt’s poor performance was not a reason for his
dismissal.

40. The consultation, to the extent that it occurred in July, was

meaningless save for a discussion of severance benefits. The
applicants had, according to Mr Mathlape, already been
retrenched on 8 June. There was no intention to try and retain
their services. The impediment, which is alleged to have
existed, preventing consultation simply did not exist. There were
 no posts for them. It was pointless to wait and see whether the
applicants would apply for jobs when there were none which
they could fill. But this approach, that there might have been a
faint likelihood that they could do some other job in the new
IDC, is precisely what should have been done in regard to posts
in the new HR department.

41. The applicants’ claim of an automatically unfair dismissal based

on alleged arbitrary discrimination is without merit. Its factual
basis lies in the claim that they were selected for retrenchment
because of their involvement in the west coast initiative.
Dismissal on this ground may point to an unfair dismissal but
underlying it is a dismissal for conduct, capacity or retrenchment
as I have found.

Appropriate remedy

42. I find that the dismissals of the applicants were substantively

and procedurally unfair. What should be done? Should the
applicants be reinstated? Should they be paid any
compensation? Twelve months have passed since the date of
the termination of their services.

43. On behalf of the IDC it is submitted that, should a decision be

made in favour of one or both applicants, reinstatement would
 be inappropriate. It is not reasonably practicable to reinstate or
re­employ the applicants.
1.
44. With regard to Mr Wolfaardt it is submitted that there is no
position available where he can be placed, nor does he have
the financial knowledge and skill to be able to perform any of
the functions in the HR department or anywhere else in the
corporation. The respondent has restructured and has for the
past three years, operated in terms of this new structure. It
would be unduly disruptive to require it to unscramble the egg
as it were, and revert to a structure and way of doing things
which has been found to be inappropriate.

45. As regards Mr Van Rensburg it was contended that the

uncontested evidence of Mr Mathlape was that IR forms an
insignificant part of the functions that need to be performed,
given the fact that by far the majority of the employees are
highly skilled and generate very few disputes. IDC has cut down
on providing IR services to its subsidiaries, something on which
Mr Van Rensburg spent a major part of his time. He still wanted
to spent a major part of his time in this field, as proved by his
approaches to Mr Galigo, the leader of the Large Beneficiation
SBU, for a position. Lastly, there is simply no position available
in HR. He lacks the skills to be placed anywhere else in the
corporation.
46. The primary remedy for an unfair dismissal is reinstatement. An
order of compensation is restricted to an amount equivalent to
12 months remuneration. But in this case, the two applicants do
not occupy the same position as other employees in similar
positions. They, Mr van Rensburg more so than Mr Wolfaardt,
were co­actors in the design of a flawed plan. A plan which
leapt into action and devoured its makers. Although, as I have
mentioned earlier, HR staff are also entitled to fair labour
practices, it would be unjust to order their reinstatement. In my
opinion compensation of 12 months is adequate in the
circumstances.

47. IDC’s retrenchment package, as discussed with employees

during the consultation process, involved a differentiation
between members of the Exco and all other employees. This
differentiation was accepted by employees in consultation
meetings prior to retrenchment. It flowed merely from the longer
period of notice to which the Exco members were entitled. The
applicants have no cause to complain.

48. Mr Wolfaardt’s remuneration package amounted to

R25 559,66 per month. Mr Van Rensburg’s monthly
remuneration was R 23 522,16 which includes study fees of R1
 455,83.

49. This is a case where law and fairness requires that costs follow
the result.

Order

It is ordered that:

17.the respondent pay compensation in the amount of

R 306 716 to the first applicant.

18.the respondent pay compensation in the amount of

R 299 736 to the second applicant.

19.the respondent pay the costs. These costs are to include the
reserved costs and the costs of the application for discovery of
documents.

SIGNED AND DATED AT BRAAMFONTEIN THIS THE 1ST DAY

OF AUGUST 2002.
 A A LANDMAN
JUDGE OF THE LABOUR COURT

HEARING: 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21 and 22 NOVEMBER 2001;
24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 JUNE 2002

UDGMENT: 01 AUGUST 2002.

APPLICANTS: Advocate H van R Woudstra SC instructed by Hlatshwayo Du

Plessis Van Der Merwe

Mr P M Maserumule of Maserumule Incorporated.