BEMAWU and Others v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd and Others; Solidarity and Others v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd and Others (J1592/16; J1343/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 341; [2017] 12 BLLR 1237 (LC); (2018) 39 ILJ 241 (LC) (15 September 2017)

BEMAWU and Others v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd and Others; Solidarity and Others v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd and Others (J1592/16; J1343/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 341; [2017] 12 BLLR 1237 (LC); (2018) 39 ILJ 241 (LC) (15 September 2017)

The court found that the Protest Policy was unlawful and unconstitutional, as confirmed by both ICASA and the North Gauteng High Court. The second respondent was either the author or a principal proponent of the policy and failed to comply with the interdict, necessitating further urgent applications. The third respondent admitted to making the decision to dismiss the applicants, acting with reckless disregard for the circumstances and pending court proceedings. The first respondent (SABC) conceded liability for costs. Given the conduct of the respondents, particularly their disregard for lawful orders and the rights of employees, the court held that it was just and equitable for the...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 341
Parties
Applicant: BEMAWU; Applicant: Busisiwe Ntuli; Applicant: Lukhanyo Calata; Applicant: Thandeka Gqubele-Mbeki; Applicant: Solidarity; Applicant: Foeta Krige; Applicant: Suna Venter; Applicant: Krivani Pillay; Applicant: Jaques Steenkamp; Respondent: South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd; Respondent: Hlaudi Motsoeneng; Respondent: Malako Simon Tebele
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 September 2017
Case Number
J1592/16; J1343/16
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Reasons for Costs Order Following Consolidation and Prior Judgments
Outcome
Costs awarded against the first, second, and third respondents, jointly and severally, on an attorney and client scale including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Gush
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Personal Liability of Officials, Unlawful Dismissal, Disciplinary Proceedings, Broadcasting Policy, Constitutional Rights
Labour Law Civil Procedure Costs Award Personal Liability of Officials Unlawful Dismissal Disciplinary Proceedings Broadcasting Policy Constitutional Rights

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 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BEMAWU

Applicant

Busisiwe Ntuli

Applicant

Lukhanyo Calata

Applicant

Thandeka Gqubele-Mbeki

Applicant

Solidarity

Applicant

Foeta Krige

Applicant

Suna Venter

Applicant

Krivani Pillay

Applicant

Jaques Steenkamp

Applicant

South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd

Respondent

Hlaudi Motsoeneng

Respondent

Malako Simon Tebele

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Reasons for Costs Order Following Consolidation and Prior Judgments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of the respondents justified a personal costs order against them.
  2. 2 Whether the apportionment of costs should be joint and several between the SABC and its officials.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissals and disciplinary actions were unlawful and in breach of constitutional and statutory duties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Protest Policy was unlawful and unconstitutional, as confirmed by both ICASA and the North Gauteng High Court. The second respondent was either the author or a principal proponent of the policy and failed to comply with the interdict, necessitating further urgent applications. The third respondent admitted to making the decision to dismiss the applicants, acting with reckless disregard for the circumstances and pending court proceedings. The first respondent (SABC) conceded liability for costs. Given the conduct of the respondents, particularly their disregard for lawful orders and the rights of employees, the court held that it was just and equitable for the...

Court Disposition

Costs awarded against the first, second, and third respondents, jointly and severally, on an attorney and client scale including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • In case J1343/16, the first, second, and third respondents are ordered to pay the applicants' costs on an attorney and own client scale including the costs of two counsel, jointly and severally.
  • In case J1592/16, the first, second, and third respondents are ordered to pay the applicants' costs on an attorney and client scale including the costs of two counsel, jointly and severally.