Futshane v Millard NO and Others (J1309/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 432 (3 November 2021)

Futshane v Millard NO and Others (J1309/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 432 (3 November 2021)

The Labour Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to intervene in the applicant's incomplete disciplinary hearing, as the applicant's cause of action was premised on an unfair labour practice for which the Labour Relations Act provides a statutory dispute resolution mechanism. The applicant failed to plead any exceptional circumstances justifying urgent intervention. The Court held that the applicant deprived herself of the right to a fair hearing by walking out of the disciplinary proceedings after her application for postponement was refused. Any apprehension of irreparable harm was self-created, and the applicant had alternative remedies under the LRA. The application was dismissed,...

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 432
Parties
Applicant: Adv Pumeza Futshane; Respondent: Adv Karensa Millard N.O.; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Director-General of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: Minister of Justice
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 November 2021
Case Number
J1309/21
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict and Declaratory Relief Prior to Completion of Disciplinary Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on a punitive scale.
Judges
M T M Phehane
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Disciplinary Hearing, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Postponement of Hearing, Interdictory Relief
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Disciplinary Hearing Jurisdiction of Labour Court Postponement of Hearing Interdictory Relief

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adv Pumeza Futshane

Applicant

Adv Karensa Millard N.O.

Respondent

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Director-General of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Minister of Justice

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict and Declaratory Relief Prior to Completion of Disciplinary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to intervene in incomplete disciplinary hearings based on alleged unfair labour practice?
  2. 2 Has the applicant established exceptional circumstances justifying urgent intervention?
  3. 3 Is the applicant entitled to an order setting aside findings made in her absence and directing a de novo hearing?

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to intervene in the applicant's incomplete disciplinary hearing, as the applicant's cause of action was premised on an unfair labour practice for which the Labour Relations Act provides a statutory dispute resolution mechanism. The applicant failed to plead any exceptional circumstances justifying urgent intervention. The Court held that the applicant deprived herself of the right to a fair hearing by walking out of the disciplinary proceedings after her application for postponement was refused. Any apprehension of irreparable harm was self-created, and the applicant had alternative remedies under the LRA. The application was dismissed,...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on a punitive scale.

Orders

  • The application is heard as urgent in terms of Rule 8.
  • The application is dismissed.