Da Gama Textile Company Ltd. v Ntlonti and Others (374/89) [1991] ZASCA 53; 1991 (3) SA 508 (AD); [1991] 2 All SA 320 (A); (1991) 12 ILJ 791 (A) (17 May 1991)

Da Gama Textile Company Ltd. v Ntlonti and Others (374/89) [1991] ZASCA 53; 1991 (3) SA 508 (AD); [1991] 2 All SA 320 (A); (1991) 12 ILJ 791 (A) (17 May 1991)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Minister's role under section 35(4) of the Labour Relations Act is to form an opinion as to whether the subject matter of the dispute concerns an unfair labour practice as defined in the Act. The Minister is not required or entitled to resolve factual disputes or determine the merits of the alleged unfair labour practices. If the dispute, in the Minister's opinion, concerns an unfair labour practice, he is obliged to approve the establishment of a conciliation board. The Minister's determination of the merits was a misdirection, and the Court a quo was correct in setting aside his decision and substituting its own. The appeal was dismissed with...

Citation
[1991] ZASCA 53
Parties
Appellant: Da Gama Textile Company Limited; Respondent: Penrose Ntlonti and Eighty-Six Others
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 May 1991
Case Number
374/89
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Goldstone, Hoexter, Hefer, Friedman, Preiss
Legal Topics
Conciliation Board Establishment, Unfair Labour Practice, Ministerial Discretion, Judicial Review
Labour Law Civil Procedure Conciliation Board Establishment Unfair Labour Practice Ministerial Discretion Judicial Review

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Da Gama Textile Company Limited

Appellant

Penrose Ntlonti and Eighty-Six Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister of Manpower was obliged to establish a conciliation board under section 35(4) of the Labour Relations Act when the dispute concerned an unfair labour practice.
  2. 2 Whether the Minister erred by determining factual disputes instead of forming an opinion on the subject matter of the dispute.
  3. 3 Whether the Court a quo correctly set aside the Minister's decision and substituted its own.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Minister's role under section 35(4) of the Labour Relations Act is to form an opinion as to whether the subject matter of the dispute concerns an unfair labour practice as defined in the Act. The Minister is not required or entitled to resolve factual disputes or determine the merits of the alleged unfair labour practices. If the dispute, in the Minister's opinion, concerns an unfair labour practice, he is obliged to approve the establishment of a conciliation board. The Minister's determination of the merits was a misdirection, and the Court a quo was correct in setting aside his decision and substituting its own. The appeal was dismissed with...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The order of the Court a quo setting aside the Minister's decision and substituting approval for the establishment of a conciliation board stands.