Breytenbach v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (J1359/13) [2013] ZALCJHB 146 (19 July 2013)

Breytenbach v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (J1359/13) [2013] ZALCJHB 146 (19 July 2013)

The court found that the applicant's allegations regarding the motive for her transfer were based on inference and suspicion, not supported by primary facts in the papers. The transfer was effected as a precautionary measure under paragraph 2.7(2) of the SMS Handbook, and the decision-making process involved the CEO and NDPP as required. The applicant failed to produce her employment contract, relying instead on secondary evidence, which was insufficient for an order of specific performance. The founding papers did not set out the requisites for interim relief, and the appropriate forum for unfair labour practice disputes is the bargaining council. Consequently, the application for...

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 146
Parties
Applicant: Glynnis Breytenbach; Respondent: National Prosecuting Authority; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 July 2013
Case Number
J1359/13
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application for Declaratory and Interdictory Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Rabkin-Naicker
Legal Topics
Precautionary Suspension, Unfair Labour Practice, Breach of Employment Contract, Specific Performance
Labour Law Civil Procedure Precautionary Suspension Unfair Labour Practice Breach of Employment Contract Specific Performance

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glynnis Breytenbach

Applicant

National Prosecuting Authority

Respondent

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application for Declaratory and Interdictory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's transfer constituted an unlawful breach of prosecutorial independence and violated constitutional imperatives.
  2. 2 Whether the precautionary transfer was effected by the correct delegated official in accordance with the SMS Handbook.
  3. 3 Whether the transfer amounted to a breach of the applicant's employment contract entitling her to specific performance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's allegations regarding the motive for her transfer were based on inference and suspicion, not supported by primary facts in the papers. The transfer was effected as a precautionary measure under paragraph 2.7(2) of the SMS Handbook, and the decision-making process involved the CEO and NDPP as required. The applicant failed to produce her employment contract, relying instead on secondary evidence, which was insufficient for an order of specific performance. The founding papers did not set out the requisites for interim relief, and the appropriate forum for unfair labour practice disputes is the bargaining council. Consequently, the application for...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.