DU VERGE v SPANISH FARM GUEST LODGE CC t/a SKY VILLA BOUTIQUE HOTEL AND ANOTHER [2026] ZALCCT 70; Case No: C04/2024; C252/2024

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 15 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town

 Name of Judge(s): Daniels J

Summary of Factual Matrix: 

The applicant alleged his retrenchment was unfair in substance and procedure. After a lengthy trial, the Court found his dismissal by the second respondent unfair in both respects and granted compensation of eight months' pay. Costs were reserved. 

The judgment addressed the question of costs, with the applicant bearing half his costs through Legal Wise and the remainder personally as an unrepresented litigant with no union support.

Summary of Findings:

"[4] In De Lacy the Constitutional Court noted that, in respect of costs, all the circumstances must be considered. Costs lie within the discretion of the court, but such discretion must be exercised justly and equitably. Section 162 of the Labour Relations Act No. 66 of 1995 (the LRA) echoes that: costs must follow the law and fairness."

"[5] In Zungu the Constitutional Court endorsed the Dorkin dictum that costs do not simply follow the result in this court. Instead, the rule is that there is no order of costs unless law and fairness demand it. The Court must walk a narrow path — not discouraging claims but not encouraging frivolous ones either."

"[6] In Bester the Labour Appeal Court added: when an individual carries her own case, without a union, fairness looks to her burden—her purse, her the needs of her family, and her solitude. This is consistent with the requirement of fairness."

"[10] Compensation was granted to the applicant for his wounded dignity and the infringement of his rights. To set costs against such compensation would hollow out his victory- and discourage other individuals from seeking relief from the Court. I therefore accept that fear of legal costs chills the right of access to court. Both Zungu and Bester warn of this. A winner who pays (costs) effectively still loses."

As such, the Court found that it exercised its discretion under section 162 of the LRA, considering the requirements of law and fairness. The applicant, an unrepresented individual bearing significant personal costs, had succeeded on all points at trial. To award costs against him would undermine his victory and potentially deter others from accessing the Court. However, fairness required that the respondent not bear costs already covered by Legal Wise, and that the applicant bear costs of transcripts paid by the respondent.

Order:

"1. For the costs of the trial, subject to para two, the second respondent is to pay 50% of the applicant's taxed costs. 

 2. The costs of all the transcriptions used in the trial, which were paid for by the second respondent, must be deducted from the taxed costs, 

 3. The second respondent shall pay the full taxed costs of this hearing on costs."