Du Plessis v Public Protector and Others (C272/19) [2019] ZALCCT 41; (2020) 41 ILJ 919 (LC) (12 December 2019)

Du Plessis v Public Protector and Others (C272/19) [2019] ZALCCT 41; (2020) 41 ILJ 919 (LC) (12 December 2019)

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to review and set aside the Public Protector's decision not to investigate the applicant's complaint, as such decisions do not arise from employment or labour relations and are not subject to review under the LRA or PAJA. The applicant's claim is further barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as the underlying dispute regarding his dismissal and the conduct of the CCMA commissioner has already been finally adjudicated by the Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court. The applicant's repeated litigation on the same issue, merely changing the grounds or forum, constitutes an abuse of process. The Court expresses its displeasure at this conduct and finds that...

Citation
[2019] ZALCCT 41
Parties
Applicant: Clement Roland Du Plessis; Respondent: Public Protector: Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane; Respondent: Reginald Ndou; Respondent: Mr D I K Wilson; Respondent: Mr Cameron Morajane; Respondent: Prof Chris Nhlapo
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2019
Case Number
C272/19
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Jurisdiction and Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction; punitive costs order granted against applicant.
Judges
S Snyman
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Review of Public Protector Decisions, Res Judicata, Abuse of Process, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Labour Law Jurisdiction of Labour Court Review of Public Protector Decisions Res Judicata Abuse of Process Costs Orders

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clement Roland Du Plessis

Applicant

Public Protector: Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane

Respondent

Reginald Ndou

Respondent

Mr D I K Wilson

Respondent

Mr Cameron Morajane

Respondent

Prof Chris Nhlapo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Jurisdiction and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to review and set aside a decision of the Public Protector declining to investigate a complaint?
  2. 2 Is the applicant's claim barred by the doctrine of res judicata?
  3. 3 Is the applicant's conduct an abuse of process warranting a punitive costs order?

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to review and set aside the Public Protector's decision not to investigate the applicant's complaint, as such decisions do not arise from employment or labour relations and are not subject to review under the LRA or PAJA. The applicant's claim is further barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as the underlying dispute regarding his dismissal and the conduct of the CCMA commissioner has already been finally adjudicated by the Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court. The applicant's repeated litigation on the same issue, merely changing the grounds or forum, constitutes an abuse of process. The Court expresses its displeasure at this conduct and finds that...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction; punitive costs order granted against applicant.

Orders

  • The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the applicant’s application.
  • The applicant’s application is dismissed.