The Industrial Court has dismissed an urgent application by the Royal Science and Technology Park to reclaim a vehicle from its former CEO, citing the need for prior arbitration.
The Industrial Court has officially struck down an urgent request from the Royal Science and Technology Park (RSTP) that aimed to force the return of a company vehicle from its former chief executive officer.
In a recent ruling, the court determined that the case must first go through the proper channels at the Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration Commission (CMAC) because significant factual disagreements remain unresolved between the parties.
This outcome highlights how the judiciary prioritizes established labor dispute protocols over fast-tracked litigation, ensuring that workplace conflicts are handled through mediation before reaching the courtroom.
RSTP had approached the bench seeking an emergency order to retrieve a Mercedes-Benz currently held by former CEO Vumile Dlamini.. The organization argued that the vehicle belonged to them and requested police intervention to assist in its recovery, while also seeking costs against the former executive.
Dlamini mounted a defense by raising several legal challenges, arguing that the applicant failed to follow the mandatory reporting procedures outlined in the Industrial Relations Act.. He maintained that the court was not the appropriate place for this dispute, especially since there were clear, foreseeable disagreements regarding the nature of the vehicle agreement and his employment terms.
Throughout the proceedings, it became clear that the history between the parties, which spans nearly a decade, complicates the simple matter of vehicle possession.. Dlamini had served under a series of fixed-term contracts since 2015, during which time the specific terms regarding his car benefit became a central point of contention.
Judge Dlamini-Ng’andu ultimately sided with the respondent, noting that the case presented material disputes—such as whether the vehicle was a dedicated perk or part of a pool—that could not be settled without oral testimony.. Because the matter had bypassed the required conciliation phase, the court found itself unable to address the core arguments regarding the vehicle’s ownership.
By referring the case back to CMAC, the court has effectively reset the process, signaling that organizational disputes of this nature require formal mediation before the law will intervene.. The ruling stands as a reminder that procedural compliance is a prerequisite for judicial consideration, regardless of how urgent an applicant feels their case may be.