Dihlabeng Local Municipality v Van Aarde and Others (JR 1607/2001, JR 1608/2001, JR 1609/2001) [2004] ZALC 28 (11 March 2004)

Dihlabeng Local Municipality v Van Aarde and Others (JR 1607/2001, JR 1608/2001, JR 1609/2001) [2004] ZALC 28 (11 March 2004)

The court held that the appointments of the third respondents as employees were made in direct contravention of section 67(3) of the Local Government Ordinance, 1962, which contains an absolute statutory prohibition. Such appointments are void ab initio and have no legal effect. The third respondents were never employees of the applicant for purposes of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to entertain their unfair dismissal disputes. Estoppel cannot operate to validate an ultra vires act or clothe a local authority with powers it does not possess. The first respondent's award was not justifiable and must be set aside. The cross-review applications for enhanced...

Citation
[2004] ZALC 28
Parties
Applicant: Dihlabeng Local Municipality; Respondent: Commissioner Marthinus Van Aarde; Respondent: The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: T L Scholtz; Respondent: T W Montsitsi; Respondent: T P Motsima
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 March 2004
Case Number
JR 1607/2001, JR 1608/2001, JR 1609/2001
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review and Cross Review Applications
Outcome
The review applications succeed; the CCMA award is set aside and the cross-review applications are dismissed.
Judges
Vahed AJ
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Ccma, Ultra Vires Appointments, Void Ab Initio, Estoppel Against Local Authority, Section 145 Review, Employee Definition
Labour Law Administrative Law Jurisdiction of Ccma Ultra Vires Appointments Void Ab Initio Estoppel Against Local Authority Section 145 Review Employee Definition

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dihlabeng Local Municipality

Applicant

Commissioner Marthinus Van Aarde

Respondent

The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

T L Scholtz

Respondent

T W Montsitsi

Respondent

T P Motsima

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review and Cross Review Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant had authority to appoint the third respondents as employees contrary to section 67(3) of the Local Government Ordinance, 1962.
  2. 2 Whether the appointments were void ab initio due to statutory prohibition.
  3. 3 Whether estoppel can operate against the applicant to validate ultra vires appointments.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appointments of the third respondents as employees were made in direct contravention of section 67(3) of the Local Government Ordinance, 1962, which contains an absolute statutory prohibition. Such appointments are void ab initio and have no legal effect. The third respondents were never employees of the applicant for purposes of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to entertain their unfair dismissal disputes. Estoppel cannot operate to validate an ultra vires act or clothe a local authority with powers it does not possess. The first respondent's award was not justifiable and must be set aside. The cross-review applications for enhanced...

Court Disposition

The review applications succeed; the CCMA award is set aside and the cross-review applications are dismissed.

Orders

  • The award of the first respondent under the auspices of the second respondent is reviewed and set aside in terms of section 145 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
  • The cross-review is dismissed.