Jabari and Others v Telkom Limited and Others (81163/17) [2021] ZAGPPHC 52 (29 January 2021)

Jabari and Others v Telkom Limited and Others (81163/17) [2021] ZAGPPHC 52 (29 January 2021)

The court found that the applicants instituted and prosecuted their review application with unreasonable delay, as required by section 7(1) of PAJA. No substantive application for condonation or extension was made under section 9, nor was such relief requested in the notice of motion. The applicants' explanation for the delay was inadequate and unsupported by confirmatory evidence. The relief sought was also moot, as the relevant contracts had expired and the position in question no longer existed. The applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies available under the Labour Relations Act and other relevant legislation. In the absence of condonation, the court was precluded from...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 52
Parties
Applicant: Mpho Jabari; Applicant: Cyril Baloyi; Applicant: Frank Mogale; Applicant: Reabetswe Ntsie; Applicant: Gareth Rittles; Applicant: Paul Scott; Applicant: Maria Magdalena Pretorius; Respondent: Telkom Limited; Respondent: Wayne Larry Vincent Louis; Respondent: Combine Private Investigators (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Imvula Security Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Smada Security, a division of the Smada Group (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 January 2021
Case Number
81163/17
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs due to unreasonable delay in instituting and prosecuting the review application.
Judges
Collis
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Section 197 Transfer, Unreasonable Delay, Condonation, Review of Tender Award, Disciplinary Action
Administrative Law Labour Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Section 197 Transfer Unreasonable Delay Condonation Review of Tender Award +1 more

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mpho Jabari

Applicant

Cyril Baloyi

Applicant

Frank Mogale

Applicant

Reabetswe Ntsie

Applicant

Gareth Rittles

Applicant

Paul Scott

Applicant

Maria Magdalena Pretorius

Applicant

Telkom Limited

Respondent

Wayne Larry Vincent Louis

Respondent

Combine Private Investigators (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Imvula Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Smada Security, a division of the Smada Group (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' review application is barred due to unreasonable delay in instituting and prosecuting the proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the appointment of the second respondent as Senior Manager in 2003 was unlawful and should be set aside.
  3. 3 Whether the section 197 transfer and outsourcing contracts entered into by the first respondent should be reviewed and set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants instituted and prosecuted their review application with unreasonable delay, as required by section 7(1) of PAJA. No substantive application for condonation or extension was made under section 9, nor was such relief requested in the notice of motion. The applicants' explanation for the delay was inadequate and unsupported by confirmatory evidence. The relief sought was also moot, as the relevant contracts had expired and the position in question no longer existed. The applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies available under the Labour Relations Act and other relevant legislation. In the absence of condonation, the court was precluded from...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs due to unreasonable delay in instituting and prosecuting the review application.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs on the basis of an unreasonable delay both in instituting and prosecuting the application.
  • The respondents are awarded costs on a party and party scale, including the costs of two counsel, where so employed.