Dince and Others v Department of Education North West Province and Others (J2234/09; J2193/09) [2009] ZALC 159; [2010] 6 BLLR 631 (LC); (2010) 31 ILJ 1193 (LC) (26 November 2009)

Dince and Others v Department of Education North West Province and Others (J2234/09; J2193/09) [2009] ZALC 159; [2010] 6 BLLR 631 (LC); (2010) 31 ILJ 1193 (LC) (26 November 2009)

The Labour Court found that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application as the applicants' cause of action was based on the unlawfulness of their suspensions, not on unfair labour practice. The suspensions were effected without affording the applicants a hearing, violating the audi alteram partem rule, which is a fundamental principle of South African law. The matter was urgent, and the requirements for a final declaratory order were met. The authorities cited by the respondents did not support their contention that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction or that the audi rule does not apply in suspension cases. There was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different...

Citation
[2009] ZALC 159
Parties
Applicant: Setlhoane Rebecca Dince; Applicant: Mompei Mokgotsi Gustaph; Applicant: Josias Siegfried Hlongwa; Applicant: H M Mweli; Respondent: Department of Education North West Province; Respondent: MEC: Education North West Province; Respondent: Office of the Superintendent-General
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 2009
Case Number
J2234/09; J2193/09
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Order Issued on 28 October 2009; Consolidated Cases J2234/09 and J2193/09.
Outcome
Leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court is dismissed. Costs are awarded against the respondents. Mr Mweli’s application for compliance and contempt of court is struck off the roll with no order as to costs.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Unlawful Suspension, Audi Alteram Partem, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Urgent Application, Final Declaratory Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unlawful Suspension Audi Alteram Partem Jurisdiction of Labour Court Urgent Application Final Declaratory Order

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Setlhoane Rebecca Dince

Applicant

Mompei Mokgotsi Gustaph

Applicant

Josias Siegfried Hlongwa

Applicant

H M Mweli

Applicant

Department of Education North West Province

Respondent

MEC: Education North West Province

Respondent

Office of the Superintendent-General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Order Issued on 28 October 2009; Consolidated Cases J2234/09 and J2193/09.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to grant relief in respect of the applicants' suspension.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' suspension was unlawful due to failure to afford a hearing (audi rule).
  3. 3 Whether the matter was urgent and justified condonation of non-compliance with court rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application as the applicants' cause of action was based on the unlawfulness of their suspensions, not on unfair labour practice. The suspensions were effected without affording the applicants a hearing, violating the audi alteram partem rule, which is a fundamental principle of South African law. The matter was urgent, and the requirements for a final declaratory order were met. The authorities cited by the respondents did not support their contention that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction or that the audi rule does not apply in suspension cases. There was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court is dismissed. Costs are awarded against the respondents. Mr Mweli’s application for compliance and contempt of court is struck off the roll with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court is dismissed.
  • The respondents are to pay the costs of the application for leave to appeal, the one paying the other to be absolved.