Gomba v Member of the Executive Council: Gauteng Department of Human Settlement (J1360/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 149; (2019) 40 ILJ 2355 (LC) (19 June 2019)

Gomba v Member of the Executive Council: Gauteng Department of Human Settlement (J1360/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 149; (2019) 40 ILJ 2355 (LC) (19 June 2019)

The court found that the applicant failed to act with the necessary haste after becoming aware of her dismissal and did not provide sufficient factual basis for urgency. Financial hardship, psychological trauma, and health issues, while unfortunate, do not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying urgent relief. The applicant did not plead or establish a clear right to the relief sought, nor did she demonstrate irreparable harm or the absence of alternative remedies. The termination was effected in terms of section 17(3)(a)(i) of the Public Service Act, and the applicant had access to remedies under the Labour Relations Act and internal policies. The application was ill-conceived...

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 149
Parties
Applicant: Dineo Gomba; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council: Gauteng Department of Human Settlement
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 June 2019
Case Number
J1360/19
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Following Termination of Employment for Absconsion
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Public Service Act Section 17, Urgent Application Requirements, Unfair Dismissal, Alternative Remedies, Financial Hardship
Labour Law Public Service Act Section 17 Urgent Application Requirements Unfair Dismissal Alternative Remedies Financial Hardship

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

Dineo Gomba

Applicant

Member of the Executive Council: Gauteng Department of Human Settlement

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Following Termination of Employment for Absconsion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established urgency justifying deviation from normal court procedures.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for final relief, including a clear right, irreparable harm, and absence of alternative remedies.
  3. 3 Whether the termination of employment was wrongful and unfair under section 17(3)(a)(i) of the Public Service Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to act with the necessary haste after becoming aware of her dismissal and did not provide sufficient factual basis for urgency. Financial hardship, psychological trauma, and health issues, while unfortunate, do not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying urgent relief. The applicant did not plead or establish a clear right to the relief sought, nor did she demonstrate irreparable harm or the absence of alternative remedies. The termination was effected in terms of section 17(3)(a)(i) of the Public Service Act, and the applicant had access to remedies under the Labour Relations Act and internal policies. The application was ill-conceived...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicant’s urgent application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.