Jonker v De Wee and Others (1859/2023) [2023] ZANCHC 73 (3 November 2023)

Jonker v De Wee and Others (1859/2023) [2023] ZANCHC 73 (3 November 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court, specifically the inability to obtain substantial redress in due course. The applicant did not produce a written contract evidencing permanent appointment, and the only extant contract had expired. The council's rescission of the permanent appointment resolution and the expiry of the fixed-term contract meant the applicant had no current contractual rights to protect. The applicant could pursue specific performance or other remedies in due course if he could prove the existence of a valid contract. The requirements for an interim interdict were not satisfied, particularly...

Citation
[2023] ZANCHC 73
Parties
Applicant: Werner Christoph Jonker; Respondent: Hendry De Wee; Respondent: Adam Jacobus Edward Claasen; Respondent: Lydia Lynette Olyn; Respondent: Samantha Gail Koopman; Respondent: Gert Vyfer; Respondent: Thomas Francios Bantom; Respondent: Jan Andries Palm; Respondent: Katherina Jacoba Klazen; Respondent: Francois Johann Farao; Respondent: Gertruida Johanna De Vries; Respondent: Johanna Hannelie Wilschut; Respondent: The Mayor, Hantam Local Municipality (Alexander Koos); Respondent: The Speaker, Hantam Local Municipality (Christo Hendry Slambee); Respondent: The Hantam Local Municipality; Respondent: The Acting Municipal Manager, Hantam Local Municipality (Tebogo Tlhoaele); Respondent: MEC: Department Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs, Northern Cape Province
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 November 2023
Case Number
1859/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict (part A) Pending Final Relief (part B)
Outcome
Application for interim relief (Part A) dismissed; costs order against opposing respondents.
Judges
Olivier AJ
Legal Topics
Municipal Employment, Interim Interdict, Contractual Rights, Rescission of Council Resolution, Appointment of Senior Manager, Urgency Requirements
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Labour Law Municipal Employment Interim Interdict Contractual Rights Rescission of Council Resolution Appointment of Senior Manager +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Werner Christoph Jonker

Applicant

Hendry De Wee

Respondent

Adam Jacobus Edward Claasen

Respondent

Lydia Lynette Olyn

Respondent

Samantha Gail Koopman

Respondent

Gert Vyfer

Respondent

Thomas Francios Bantom

Respondent

Jan Andries Palm

Respondent

Katherina Jacoba Klazen

Respondent

Francois Johann Farao

Respondent

Gertruida Johanna De Vries

Respondent

Johanna Hannelie Wilschut

Respondent

The Mayor, Hantam Local Municipality (Alexander Koos)

Respondent

The Speaker, Hantam Local Municipality (Christo Hendry Slambee)

Respondent

The Hantam Local Municipality

Respondent

The Acting Municipal Manager, Hantam Local Municipality (Tebogo Tlhoaele)

Respondent

MEC: Department Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs, Northern Cape Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict (part A) Pending Final Relief (part B)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to interim relief restraining the respondents from appointing another person to the position of Senior Manager: Finance and Corporate Services pending final determination of Part B.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established urgency and the absence of substantial redress in due course.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has a prima facie right to the position based on the alleged permanent appointment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency as required by Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court, specifically the inability to obtain substantial redress in due course. The applicant did not produce a written contract evidencing permanent appointment, and the only extant contract had expired. The council's rescission of the permanent appointment resolution and the expiry of the fixed-term contract meant the applicant had no current contractual rights to protect. The applicant could pursue specific performance or other remedies in due course if he could prove the existence of a valid contract. The requirements for an interim interdict were not satisfied, particularly...

Court Disposition

Application for interim relief (Part A) dismissed; costs order against opposing respondents.

Orders

  • The application, in as far as Part A thereof is concerned, is dismissed.
  • The respondents (except the 2nd and 6th to 10th respondents) are ordered, jointly and severally, to contribute 50% of the applicant's taxed and/or agreed costs on a party and party scale.