Kriel v Legal Aid Board (JR3518/09) [2010] ZALC 159 (30 July 2010)

Kriel v Legal Aid Board (JR3518/09) [2010] ZALC 159 (30 July 2010)

The Labour Court held that the applicant's review under section 158(1)(h) of the LRA is not competent, as the dismissal does not constitute administrative action subject to review under PAJA or the doctrine of legality. The issues raised by the applicant have already been disposed of by the High Court, SCA, and Constitutional Court, and the objections of res judicata and lis pendens are upheld. The chairpersons need not be joined as they lack a direct interest in the delegation issue. The applicant's remedy lies in his pending unfair dismissal claim, not in a constitutional legality review. Accordingly, the merits of the review are not entertained.

Citation
[2010] ZALC 159
Parties
Applicant: Jan Paul Kriel; Respondent: Legal Aid Board
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 July 2010
Case Number
JR3518/09
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Objections in Limine to Review Application Under Section 158(1)(h) of the LRA
Outcome
The respondent's objections in limine, save for the non-joinder objection, are upheld. The review application is dismissed without consideration of the merits.
Judges
Bhoola
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Review of Public Sector Dismissal, Doctrine of Legality, Res Judicata, Lis Pendens
Labour Law Administrative Law Jurisdiction of Labour Court Review of Public Sector Dismissal Doctrine of Legality Res Judicata Lis Pendens

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 28 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Paul Kriel

Applicant

Legal Aid Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Objections in Limine to Review Application Under Section 158(1)(h) of the LRA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's review under section 158(1)(h) of the LRA is competent given prior litigation and the nature of the dismissal.
  2. 2 Whether the objections of res judicata and lis pendens preclude the applicant from pursuing the review.
  3. 3 Whether the chairpersons of the disciplinary and appeal hearings should have been joined as parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court held that the applicant's review under section 158(1)(h) of the LRA is not competent, as the dismissal does not constitute administrative action subject to review under PAJA or the doctrine of legality. The issues raised by the applicant have already been disposed of by the High Court, SCA, and Constitutional Court, and the objections of res judicata and lis pendens are upheld. The chairpersons need not be joined as they lack a direct interest in the delegation issue. The applicant's remedy lies in his pending unfair dismissal claim, not in a constitutional legality review. Accordingly, the merits of the review are not entertained.

Court Disposition

The respondent's objections in limine, save for the non-joinder objection, are upheld. The review application is dismissed without consideration of the merits.

Orders

  • The respondent's objections in limine, except for the non-joinder objection, are upheld.