Lamola v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (J2436/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 428 (11 December 2015)
The court found that the matter had become moot because the respondent withdrew the applicant's suspension. However, the respondent's conduct in persisting with the suspension and only restoring the status quo ante on the day of the hearing justified a punitive costs order. The court emphasized the need to deter...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] ZALCJHB 428
- Parties
- Applicant: Lamola Ishmael Sello; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Steve Ngobeni: Chief of Police, Tshwane Metropolitan Police Department; Respondent: Jason Ngobeni: Head of Administration, City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- J2436/15
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application; Costs Determination
- Outcome
- Application dismissed as moot; punitive costs order granted against the first respondent.
- Judges
- Nkutha-Nkontwana
- Legal Topics
- Unlawful Suspension, Final Interdict, Costs Award, Collective Agreement Compliance
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lamola Ishmael Sello
Applicant
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Respondent
Steve Ngobeni: Chief of Police, Tshwane Metropolitan Police Department
Respondent
Jason Ngobeni: Head of Administration, City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application; Costs Determination
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's suspension was unlawful.
- 2 Whether the matter became moot due to withdrawal of suspension.
- 3 Whether a punitive costs order is justified against the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the matter had become moot because the respondent withdrew the applicant's suspension. However, the respondent's conduct in persisting with the suspension and only restoring the status quo ante on the day of the hearing justified a punitive costs order. The court emphasized the need to deter local government employers from disregarding collective agreements and awarded costs on an attorney and own client scale.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed as moot; punitive costs order granted against the first respondent.
Orders
- The matter has become moot due to the withdrawal of the applicant's suspension.
- The first respondent is to pay the costs at the scale as between attorney and own client.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Reportable
Case No: J 2436/15
In the matter between:
LAMOLA ISHMAEL SELLO Applicant and CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY First Respondent STEVE NGOBENI: CHIEF OF POLICE, TSHWANE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT Second Respondent JASON NGOBENI: HEAD OF ADMINISTRATION, THE CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Third Respondent
Date heard:
11 December 2015
Judgment delivered: 11 December 2015
NKUTHA-NKONTWANA AJ
[1] This is an urgent application in terms of which the Applicant essentially seeks, by way of an final interdict, a declaration that his suspension is unlawful and setting aside same.
[2] I was, however, advised by the counsel for the First Respondent that the impugned suspension has since been withdrawn as per the letter date 11 December 2014. Accordingly, the matter has become moot.
[3] The only issue that remains for determination is costs. The counsel for the Applicant submitted that up until the day of the hearing of the matter, the suspension had not been withdrawn, in a sense that the status quo ante had not been reinstated. I note that the First Respondent was alerted by the Applicants’ attorneys of record that its conduct in suspending the Applicant was unlawful as early as 20 November 2015. It was only four days later that the First Respondent replied and persisted that the suspension was lawful and hence these proceedings were launched.
[4] Instead of opposing, the First Respondent sought to uplift the suspension with a tender to pay costs on a party to party scale. However, the Applicant did not accept the withdrawal of his suspension since it did not restore the status quo ante but it sought to transfer him to another department. The First Respondent only acceded to Applicant’s demand in a letter dated 11 November 2015, the day of the hearing of the matter.
[5] Given the First Respondent’s conduct, it is my view that an order sought by the Applicant is appropriate. Also, the prevalence of these kinds of matters in this court, I am convinced that it is about time the punitive costs should be awarded in order to dissuade the employers within the local government sector from flouting the provisions of the SALGBC Disciplinary Procedure and Code Collective Agreement.
[6] For the above reasons, I make the following order:
1. The matter has become moot due to the withdrawal of the Applicant’s suspension.
2. The First Respondent is to pay the costs at the scale as between attorney and own client.
_____________________
Nkutha- Nkontwana, AJ
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Adv Mathabedi SC with Adv P Jara
For the Respondents: Adv T Mkhwanazi