Elias and Others v Morifi and Others (J1246/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 350; (2022) 43 ILJ 382 (LC) (15 October 2021)

Elias and Others v Morifi and Others (J1246/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 350; (2022) 43 ILJ 382 (LC) (15 October 2021)

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute because it is not a dispute between PAWUSA and its members, but rather a dispute between office-bearers of the union. Section 158(1)(e) of the LRA is clear in confining the court's jurisdiction to disputes between a trade union and its members regarding compliance with the union's constitution. The applicants have not sought relief against PAWUSA as a trade union, nor have they established a dispute with the union itself. The dispute is internal, between factions of office-bearers, and therefore falls outside the jurisdictional footprint of the Labour Court. The application must be dismissed on this basis.

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 350
Parties
Applicant: Mokhonoana Thinta Elias; Applicant: Bongaza Mango; Applicant: Molefhe Neo; Applicant: Mandla Mashinini; Applicant: Maoto Isaac Phadime; Applicant: Jarome Bock; Applicant: Claude Marks; Applicant: Elias Miga; Applicant: Pieter Topp; Respondent: Koena Raymond Morifi; Respondent: Halalisani Gumede; Respondent: Joey Hector; Respondent: Kaptein Johannes; Respondent: Mabunda Mariam; Respondent: Tshisevhe Joseph; Respondent: PAWUSA
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 October 2021
Case Number
J1246/21
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Trade Union Constitution, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Office Bearer Disputes, Section 158 Lra
Labour Law Civil Procedure Trade Union Constitution Jurisdiction of Labour Court Office Bearer Disputes Section 158 Lra

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mokhonoana Thinta Elias

Applicant

Bongaza Mango

Applicant

Molefhe Neo

Applicant

Mandla Mashinini

Applicant

Maoto Isaac Phadime

Applicant

Jarome Bock

Applicant

Claude Marks

Applicant

Elias Miga

Applicant

Pieter Topp

Applicant

Koena Raymond Morifi

Respondent

Halalisani Gumede

Respondent

Joey Hector

Respondent

Kaptein Johannes

Respondent

Mabunda Mariam

Respondent

Tshisevhe Joseph

Respondent

PAWUSA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction over a dispute between office-bearers of a trade union regarding compliance with the union's constitution?
  2. 2 Is section 158(1)(e) of the LRA applicable to disputes between office-bearers inter se, as opposed to disputes between members and the union?
  3. 3 Should the decisions taken at the NEC meeting of 16 and 17 September 2021 be set aside for alleged unconstitutionality?

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute because it is not a dispute between PAWUSA and its members, but rather a dispute between office-bearers of the union. Section 158(1)(e) of the LRA is clear in confining the court's jurisdiction to disputes between a trade union and its members regarding compliance with the union's constitution. The applicants have not sought relief against PAWUSA as a trade union, nor have they established a dispute with the union itself. The dispute is internal, between factions of office-bearers, and therefore falls outside the jurisdictional footprint of the Labour Court. The application must be dismissed on this basis.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed, with costs.