Bonakele v Department of Health (CA17-2024) [2025] ZALAC 34 (4 June 2025)

Bonakele v Department of Health (CA17-2024) [2025] ZALAC 34 (4 June 2025)

The Labour Appeal Court found that the respondent was aware of the appellant's whereabouts and reasons for absence, and had elected to bar her entry to the workplace and pursue disciplinary action rather than invoke deemed dismissal under section 17(3)(a)(i) of the Public Service Act. The respondent's subsequent reliance on deemed dismissal was an afterthought and not supported by the facts. The appellant was effectively suspended from duty from 14 February 2023, and the requirements for deemed dismissal were not met. The Labour Court committed a material misdirection in refusing declaratory and consequential relief. The appellant is entitled to an order setting aside the notice of deemed...

Citation
[2025] ZALAC 34
Parties
Appellant: Masabata Bonakele; Respondent: Department of Health
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 June 2025
Case Number
CA17/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Labour Court orders set aside and substituted with reinstatement and compensation capped at twelve months' salary.
Judges
Savage, Waglay, Musi
Legal Topics
Deemed Dismissal, Public Service Act, Absence Without Leave, Disciplinary Procedure, Reinstatement, Compensation
Labour Law Administrative Law Deemed Dismissal Public Service Act Absence Without Leave Disciplinary Procedure Reinstatement Compensation

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Masabata Bonakele

Appellant

Department of Health

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was lawfully deemed dismissed under section 17(3)(a)(i) of the Public Service Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to invoke deemed dismissal after barring the appellant from the workplace and electing to pursue disciplinary action.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is entitled to reinstatement and compensation for the period of absence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court found that the respondent was aware of the appellant's whereabouts and reasons for absence, and had elected to bar her entry to the workplace and pursue disciplinary action rather than invoke deemed dismissal under section 17(3)(a)(i) of the Public Service Act. The respondent's subsequent reliance on deemed dismissal was an afterthought and not supported by the facts. The appellant was effectively suspended from duty from 14 February 2023, and the requirements for deemed dismissal were not met. The Labour Court committed a material misdirection in refusing declaratory and consequential relief. The appellant is entitled to an order setting aside the notice of deemed...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Labour Court orders set aside and substituted with reinstatement and compensation capped at twelve months' salary.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with no order as to costs.
  • The notice of dismissal given to the applicant by the respondent on 10 March 2023 is set aside; the deemed dismissal is declared to be of no force and effect.