Gauteng Tourism Authority v Nchabeleng and Others (JR2493/18) [2020] ZALCJHB 34 (14 February 2020)

Gauteng Tourism Authority v Nchabeleng and Others (JR2493/18) [2020] ZALCJHB 34 (14 February 2020)

The Court found that the recommendations to split the Company Secretary position and appoint the first respondent as Manager: Legal Support were never implemented by the new Board, which expressly resolved not to give effect to them. The first respondent was never appointed to the new position, and his probation as Company Secretary ended in August 2017. The impugned decisions were thus rendered academic and of no practical effect. The application to review and set aside these decisions was dismissed as moot, and the applicant failed to demonstrate any prejudice or threat arising from the original recommendations. The Court held that there was no reason in law or fairness to grant the...

Citation
[2020] ZALCJHB 34
Parties
Applicant: Gauteng Tourism Authority; Respondent: Komane Nchabeleng; Respondent: Fezile Ngqobe; Respondent: Khehla Mthembu; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 February 2020
Case Number
JR 2493/18
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded to the first respondent.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Ultra Vires, Probation Termination, Unlawful Appointment, Review of Administrative Action, Ccma Jurisdiction
Labour Law Administrative Law Ultra Vires Probation Termination Unlawful Appointment Review of Administrative Action Ccma Jurisdiction

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gauteng Tourism Authority

Applicant

Komane Nchabeleng

Respondent

Fezile Ngqobe

Respondent

Khehla Mthembu

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second and third respondents acted ultra vires in recommending and approving the splitting of the Company Secretary position and the offer of employment to the first respondent as Manager: Legal Support.
  2. 2 Whether the Chairperson of the Board had authority to authorise the splitting of the Company Secretary position and offer the first respondent the Manager: Legal Support position.
  3. 3 Whether the offer of employment to the first respondent as Manager: Legal Support was unlawful and null and void.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the recommendations to split the Company Secretary position and appoint the first respondent as Manager: Legal Support were never implemented by the new Board, which expressly resolved not to give effect to them. The first respondent was never appointed to the new position, and his probation as Company Secretary ended in August 2017. The impugned decisions were thus rendered academic and of no practical effect. The application to review and set aside these decisions was dismissed as moot, and the applicant failed to demonstrate any prejudice or threat arising from the original recommendations. The Court held that there was no reason in law or fairness to grant the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded to the first respondent.

Orders

  • The applicant's application is dismissed with costs.