Gardner and Others v Central University of Technology, Free State (J534/08) [2010] ZALC 75 (7 May 2010)

Gardner and Others v Central University of Technology, Free State (J534/08) [2010] ZALC 75 (7 May 2010)

The court held that the 2004 retrenchment policy was not lawfully adopted or approved by the respondent's council, nor was there valid delegation to the Vice-Chancellor to approve new severance benefits. The delegations register and empowering legislation require restrictive interpretation, and only council may determine conditions of service. The evidence did not establish that the Vice-Chancellor lawfully approved the policy. As the policy was ultra vires, the respondent was entitled to disregard it and revert to the Labour Relations Act provisions for severance pay. The principle from Oudekraal Estates does not apply where the author of an ultra vires act has not performed subsequent...

Citation
[2010] ZALC 75
Parties
Applicant: CI Gardner; Applicant: SM Thulare; Applicant: MS Mandew; Applicant: RFS Stone; Respondent: Central University of Technology, Free State
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 May 2010
Case Number
J534/08
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits and Condonation
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Fulton
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Retrenchment Policy, Severance Pay, Delegation of Powers, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Labour Law Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Retrenchment Policy Severance Pay Delegation of Powers Procedural Fairness

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CI Gardner

Applicant

SM Thulare

Applicant

MS Mandew

Applicant

RFS Stone

Applicant

Central University of Technology, Free State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the 2004 retrenchment policy lawfully adopted or approved by the respondent's council?
  2. 2 Did the respondent act lawfully in disregarding the 2004 retrenchment policy and reverting to the Labour Relations Act provisions for severance pay?
  3. 3 Did the applicants have procedural rights to be consulted before the council's decision of 15 June 2007?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the 2004 retrenchment policy was not lawfully adopted or approved by the respondent's council, nor was there valid delegation to the Vice-Chancellor to approve new severance benefits. The delegations register and empowering legislation require restrictive interpretation, and only council may determine conditions of service. The evidence did not establish that the Vice-Chancellor lawfully approved the policy. As the policy was ultra vires, the respondent was entitled to disregard it and revert to the Labour Relations Act provisions for severance pay. The principle from Oudekraal Estates does not apply where the author of an ultra vires act has not performed subsequent...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicants' application is dismissed.
  • The respondent is granted costs, including the cost of two counsel.