Chikane and Another v MEC for Roads and Transport, Gauteng Province and Others (J856/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 125 (25 April 2017)

Chikane and Another v MEC for Roads and Transport, Gauteng Province and Others (J856/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 125 (25 April 2017)

The applicants failed to establish a substantive right to be heard before the finalisation of the forensic report, either contractually or under the Labour Relations Act or its Code of Good Practice. The Code does not require a formal inquiry during investigations, nor does it grant a right to make representations on the entire report prior to its completion. The applicants were given an opportunity to comment during the investigation. The disciplinary hearing itself provides a forum for challenging the forensic report and the charges. There is no evidence that the disciplinary hearing will not follow due process, nor is there a reasonable apprehension of harm if it proceeds. The...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 125
Parties
Applicant: Chikane Albert Chikane; Applicant: Natalie Rosalind Govender; Respondent: MEC for Roads and Transport, Gauteng Province; Respondent: Head of the Department of Road and Transport, Gauteng Province; Respondent: Majang Incorporated Attorneys; Respondent: Bosman Giyose Dyasi Incorporated
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 April 2017
Case Number
J856/17
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Before Disciplinary Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Whitcher
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Interdict, Procedural Fairness, Code of Good Practice
Labour Law Civil Procedure Disciplinary Proceedings Interdict Procedural Fairness Code of Good Practice

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chikane Albert Chikane

Applicant

Natalie Rosalind Govender

Applicant

MEC for Roads and Transport, Gauteng Province

Respondent

Head of the Department of Road and Transport, Gauteng Province

Respondent

Majang Incorporated Attorneys

Respondent

Bosman Giyose Dyasi Incorporated

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Before Disciplinary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an urgent interdict preventing the respondents from proceeding with disciplinary hearings pending the outcome of a High Court review of a forensic report.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have a right to make representations on the forensic report before its finalisation.
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary charges are squarely based on the forensic report.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish a substantive right to be heard before the finalisation of the forensic report, either contractually or under the Labour Relations Act or its Code of Good Practice. The Code does not require a formal inquiry during investigations, nor does it grant a right to make representations on the entire report prior to its completion. The applicants were given an opportunity to comment during the investigation. The disciplinary hearing itself provides a forum for challenging the forensic report and the charges. There is no evidence that the disciplinary hearing will not follow due process, nor is there a reasonable apprehension of harm if it proceeds. The...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.