Kekana v Mogalakwena Local Municipality (J1814/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 325 (22 September 2015)

Kekana v Mogalakwena Local Municipality (J1814/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 325 (22 September 2015)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a competent prayer for reinstatement in the review application, as the relief sought was essentially declaratory and not coupled with substantive reinstatement. Even if such a prayer existed, there was no legal prohibition on the respondent proceeding with the appointment process, and the applicant did not demonstrate irreparable harm. The applicant also failed to show that the appointment process was unlawful or that he had prospects of success in the review. Accordingly, the applicant did not establish a prima facie right deserving urgent protection, and the application was dismissed with costs on an attorney-client scale due to...

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 325
Parties
Applicant: Shella William Kekana; Respondent: Mogalakwena Local Municipality
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2015
Case Number
J1814/15
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Pending Review
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on an attorney-client scale.
Judges
B Whitcher
Legal Topics
Interdict, Reinstatement, Review Application, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Interdict Reinstatement Review Application Costs Order

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

Shella William Kekana

Applicant

Mogalakwena Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Pending Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an urgent interdict preventing the appointment of a new municipal manager pending the outcome of a review application.
  2. 2 Whether the review application contains a competent prayer for reinstatement.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has established irreparable harm or a prima facie right deserving urgent protection.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a competent prayer for reinstatement in the review application, as the relief sought was essentially declaratory and not coupled with substantive reinstatement. Even if such a prayer existed, there was no legal prohibition on the respondent proceeding with the appointment process, and the applicant did not demonstrate irreparable harm. The applicant also failed to show that the appointment process was unlawful or that he had prospects of success in the review. Accordingly, the applicant did not establish a prima facie right deserving urgent protection, and the application was dismissed with costs on an attorney-client scale due to...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on an attorney-client scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs on an attorney-client scale.