Administrateur van Transvaal en Andere v Thusi (53/1990) [1990] ZASCA 164 (30 November 1990)

Administrateur van Transvaal en Andere v Thusi (53/1990) [1990] ZASCA 164 (30 November 1990)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the process followed by the appellants in dismissing the respondent was procedurally unfair. The opportunity to make representations was limited only to those workers considered 'innocent' and not to all workers facing dismissal. Furthermore, the scope of the representations was restricted to the workers' involvement in the strike, rather than allowing for any other reasons why dismissal should not occur. This failed to comply with the audi alteram partem rule and statutory requirements for procedural fairness. The evidence, particularly the testimony of Mr Olivier and the supporting affidavits, confirmed that the invitation to make representations...

Citation
[1990] ZASCA 164
Parties
Appellant: Administrateur van Transvaal; Appellant: Direkteur van Hospitaaldienste; Appellant: Provinsiale Sekretaris van die Transvaalse Provinsiale Administrasie; Respondent: Miriam Thusi
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 1990
Case Number
53/1990
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Botha, Smalberger, Steyn, Grosskopf, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Summary Dismissal, Audi Alteram Partem, Unlawful Strike, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Summary Dismissal Audi Alteram Partem Unlawful Strike Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Administrateur van Transvaal

Appellant

Direkteur van Hospitaaldienste

Appellant

Provinsiale Sekretaris van die Transvaalse Provinsiale Administrasie

Appellant

Miriam Thusi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was afforded a proper opportunity to make representations before summary dismissal.
  2. 2 Whether the invitation to make representations was limited only to workers who did not wish to participate in the strike.
  3. 3 Whether the opportunity to make representations was limited to the workers' involvement in the strike.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the process followed by the appellants in dismissing the respondent was procedurally unfair. The opportunity to make representations was limited only to those workers considered 'innocent' and not to all workers facing dismissal. Furthermore, the scope of the representations was restricted to the workers' involvement in the strike, rather than allowing for any other reasons why dismissal should not occur. This failed to comply with the audi alteram partem rule and statutory requirements for procedural fairness. The evidence, particularly the testimony of Mr Olivier and the supporting affidavits, confirmed that the invitation to make representations...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two advocates.