Labour Court RulesCorporate locus standiRepresentation of legal entities
Keywords
Abandoned appealLocus standiCorporate capacityAuthority to deposeRule 36
Tags
Reinstatement of appealCorporate capacityAuthority to litigate
legislation
Statutes Cited
*
N
o
s
t
a
t
u
t
e
w
a
s
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
e
d
o
r
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
;
o
n
l
y
a
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
a
l
r
u
l
e
w
a
s
m
e
n
t
i
o
n
e
d
.
*
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Has the applicant established its locus standi/capacity to institute these proceedings?","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicant's legal nature not specified; no evidence of corporate status"}
{"issue_text":"Does the deponent T. Shoko have authority to depose to the founding affidavit on behalf of the applicant?","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"No resolution or authority produced; attorney only stated \"client\" instructed her"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
Applicant sought reinstatement of an abandoned appeal under Rule 36. Respondent raised two points in limine: that applicant's corporate status and capacity to sue were not established, and that the deponent lacked authority to represent the applicant. The founding affidavit merely stated "I am the Applicant's legal practitioner" without clarifying applicant's legal nature or attaching any corporate resolution.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases