BLLAHWU Burial Society loses court battle against Union
Mpho Mokwape | Wednesday December 14, 2016 13:47
Judge Michael Leburu yesterday dismissed the scheme’s application saying they had no business with the union since they have long disassociated from it.
The burial society had recently taken the union and Registrar of Trade Unions& Employers Organisation to court for “illegally” registering the constitution of the union, which seeks to regulate the burial society.
The members of the society were accusing the union of wanting to take control of the burial society and forcing the Registrar to act beyond their powers. They argued that the Registrar had no powers over societies, but trade unions.
When delivering judgement, Leburu said the burial society’s application was misconceived and ought to be dismissed, more so that it is regulated by its own constitution and the Societies Act.
He explained that all the articles sought to be expunged from the union’s constitution did not purport to control and regulate the burial society.
“Such articles are directed towards a new burial scheme formed after the applicant disassociated itself from the union,” he said.
Leburu said it was evident that the relationship that used to exist between the burial society and the union was terminated after the applicant expunged from its constitution all the articles that provided the regulatory oversight and constitutional relations between the two entities.
He pointed out that as such, the union accepted the said disaffiliation and had moved on to establish a new entity, which has similar name to the burial society.
“There is no evidence that the union purported to regulate the burial society and furthermore, their new scheme is managed by a different entity that has no connections with the burial society,” he said.
Furthermore, Leburu said the continued strained relationship between the union and the burial society led to the amendment of the society’s constitution to remove the union’s control over the society.
He maintained that following such the society then wrote a letter disassociating itself completely from the union and therefore preaching its own independence from the union.
On the names of the two entities, Leburu said the legal dispute concerning the use of similar names was a matter of consideration before another judge, and not his court.