Kgwadi v Cwele NO and Another (56481/11) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1128 (10 November 2016)

Kgwadi v Cwele NO and Another (56481/11) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1128 (10 November 2016)

The court found that the applicant did not meet the minimum academic requirements for the position she sought, and the decision not to approve her transfer was rational and lawful. The respondents acted within their powers, and the applicant's reliance on experience and loyalty as overriding criteria was misplaced. Regarding the salary deduction, the applicant was aware she was not entitled to the funds and dissipated them dishonestly; the department ceased deductions upon legal advice and is now pursuing recovery through summons. The relief sought in respect of deductions was dismissed. On the performance assessment, the applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies, rendering her...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 1128
Parties
Applicant: Banyana Gladys Kgwadi; Respondent: Honourable Minister Siyabonga Cwele NO; Respondent: Department of State Security
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 November 2016
Case Number
56481/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
MNGQIBISA-THUSI
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Unfair Labour Practice, Interdepartmental Transfer, Salary Deduction, Performance Assessment
Administrative Law Labour Law Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Unfair Labour Practice Interdepartmental Transfer Salary Deduction Performance Assessment

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Banyana Gladys Kgwadi

Applicant

Honourable Minister Siyabonga Cwele NO

Respondent

Department of State Security

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to approve the applicant's transfer to a higher position was unlawful and irrational.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents were entitled to make deductions from the applicant's salary to recover an erroneous deposit.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's performance assessment should be set aside for unfairness.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant did not meet the minimum academic requirements for the position she sought, and the decision not to approve her transfer was rational and lawful. The respondents acted within their powers, and the applicant's reliance on experience and loyalty as overriding criteria was misplaced. Regarding the salary deduction, the applicant was aware she was not entitled to the funds and dissipated them dishonestly; the department ceased deductions upon legal advice and is now pursuing recovery through summons. The relief sought in respect of deductions was dismissed. On the performance assessment, the applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies, rendering her...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.