Kriel v Legal Aid Board and Others (138/08) [2009] ZASCA 76; 2010 (2) SA 282 (SCA) ; [2009] 9 BLLR 854 (SCA); [2009] 4 All SA 314 (SCA); (2009) 30 ILJ 1735 (SCA) (1 June 2009)

Kriel v Legal Aid Board and Others (138/08) [2009] ZASCA 76; 2010 (2) SA 282 (SCA) ; [2009] 9 BLLR 854 (SCA); [2009] 4 All SA 314 (SCA); (2009) 30 ILJ 1735 (SCA) (1 June 2009)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the dismissal of the appellant by the Legal Aid Board did not constitute administrative action as defined by PAJA, but was an exercise of contractual power governed by the Labour Relations Act. The court found that the High Court had jurisdiction to consider the review application, but the appellant failed to establish a cause of action under administrative law. The court reaffirmed the principle that public sector employees are subject to the same labour law protections as private sector employees, and that remedies for unfair dismissal must be sought under the LRA in the Labour Court. The appellant's reliance on PAJA, contractual irregularities, and...

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 76
Parties
Appellant: Jan-Paul Kriel; Respondent: Legal Aid Board; Respondent: J K M Mosime NO; Respondent: P HunderMark NO; Respondent: W Lambley; Respondent: Law Society of the Northern Provinces
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 2009
Case Number
138/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Pretoria; Review Application Dismissed; Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mpati, Cachalia, Mhlantla, Leach, Bosielo
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Administrative Action, Jurisdiction, Protected Disclosure, Contractual Employment, Review Proceedings
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Administrative Action Jurisdiction Protected Disclosure Contractual Employment Review Proceedings

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan-Paul Kriel

Appellant

Legal Aid Board

Respondent

J K M Mosime NO

Respondent

P HunderMark NO

Respondent

W Lambley

Respondent

Law Society of the Northern Provinces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Pretoria; Review Application Dismissed; Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the appellant constituted administrative action under PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to review the dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's dismissal was unlawful or unfair due to improper delegation of authority and protected disclosure.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the dismissal of the appellant by the Legal Aid Board did not constitute administrative action as defined by PAJA, but was an exercise of contractual power governed by the Labour Relations Act. The court found that the High Court had jurisdiction to consider the review application, but the appellant failed to establish a cause of action under administrative law. The court reaffirmed the principle that public sector employees are subject to the same labour law protections as private sector employees, and that remedies for unfair dismissal must be sought under the LRA in the Labour Court. The appellant's reliance on PAJA, contractual irregularities, and...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.