Dlomo v Director-General: State Security Agency and Another (B38737/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1864; (2024) 45 ILJ 398 (GP) (25 October 2023)

Dlomo v Director-General: State Security Agency and Another (B38737/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1864; (2024) 45 ILJ 398 (GP) (25 October 2023)

The court found that the applicant was discharged by operation of law under section 15 of the Intelligence Services Act due to his extended absence without permission from the Acting Director-General. The applicant failed to submit leave requests to the appropriate authority and ignored repeated instructions to report for duty. The court held that the High Court does not have jurisdiction over unfair dismissal claims for State Security Agency employees, as such disputes fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court and are excluded from the LRA's dispute resolution mechanisms. Furthermore, the discharge did not constitute administrative action and was not subject to review...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1864
Parties
Applicant: Thulani Silence Dlomo; Respondent: Director-General: State Security Agency; Respondent: Minister of State Security
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 October 2023
Case Number
B38737/2022
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Basson
Legal Topics
Intelligence Services Act, Unfair Dismissal, Jurisdiction of High Court, Deemed Discharge, Administrative Action
Labour Law Intelligence Services Act Unfair Dismissal Jurisdiction of High Court Deemed Discharge Administrative Action

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thulani Silence Dlomo

Applicant

Director-General: State Security Agency

Respondent

Minister of State Security

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's dismissal by operation of law under section 15 of the Intelligence Services Act was procedurally and substantively unfair.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review the applicant's discharge as an unfair dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the discharge constituted administrative action subject to review under PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was discharged by operation of law under section 15 of the Intelligence Services Act due to his extended absence without permission from the Acting Director-General. The applicant failed to submit leave requests to the appropriate authority and ignored repeated instructions to report for duty. The court held that the High Court does not have jurisdiction over unfair dismissal claims for State Security Agency employees, as such disputes fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court and are excluded from the LRA's dispute resolution mechanisms. Furthermore, the discharge did not constitute administrative action and was not subject to review...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for reinstatement is dismissed.
  • Condonation for the late filing of the answering affidavit is granted.