Croukamp v Minister of Defence and Others (57536/2007) [2009] ZAGPPHC 43 (28 April 2009)

Croukamp v Minister of Defence and Others (57536/2007) [2009] ZAGPPHC 43 (28 April 2009)

The applicant was absent from duty without permission for more than 30 days, having commenced employment with another employer without the required authority. In terms of section 59(3) of the Defence Act, her dismissal was effected by operation of law, not by administrative action. The withdrawal or suspension of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 43
Parties
Applicant: Belinda Croukamp; Respondent: Minister of Defence; Respondent: Secretary for Defence; Respondent: Chief of the South African National Defence Force; Respondent: Colonel M Ndlovu (in his capacity as Acting Officer, Commanding 1 Military Hospital)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 April 2009
Case Number
57536/2007
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Motion Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Seriti
Legal Topics
Dismissal by Operation of Law, Mobility Exit Mechanism, Absence Without Leave, Defence Act Interpretation
Administrative Law Labour Law Dismissal by Operation of Law Mobility Exit Mechanism Absence Without Leave Defence Act Interpretation

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Belinda Croukamp

Applicant

Minister of Defence

Respondent

Secretary for Defence

Respondent

Chief of the South African National Defence Force

Respondent

Colonel M Ndlovu (in his capacity as Acting Officer, Commanding 1 Military Hospital)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment After Motion Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's dismissal from the Department of Defence was effected by operation of law or administrative action.
  2. 2 Whether the withdrawal or suspension of the applicant's Mobility Exit Mechanism (MEM) application was lawful.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to relief in respect of her dismissal and MEM application.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was absent from duty without permission for more than 30 days, having commenced employment with another employer without the required authority. In terms of section 59(3) of the Defence Act, her dismissal was effected by operation of law, not by administrative action. The withdrawal or suspension of her MEM application was justified pending the outcome of an inquiry into leaked information. The applicant failed to establish any right to relief, as her dismissal was automatic and lawful under the statute. The argument that section 59(3) must be read with section 103 was rejected, as the statutory provision operates independently and does not require a Board of Inquiry prior...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs of the respondents on a party and party scale, including costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.