Letakgomo v Johnson Matthey (Pty) Ltd (J683/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 240 (31 May 2025)

Letakgomo v Johnson Matthey (Pty) Ltd (J683/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 240 (31 May 2025)

The court found that the applicant did not make a disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act, as his report concerned criminal conduct not attributable to the employer or its employees. Without a protected disclosure, the disciplinary hearing could not be considered an occupational detriment, and the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section 188A(11) of the Labour Relations Act were not met. The court further held that the holding of a disciplinary hearing is not, in itself, an occupational detriment, and that Rule 34(9) of the CCMA Rules, which compels the employer to pay the prescribed fee when objecting to a section 188A(11) request, is inconsistent with the...

Citation
[2025] ZALCJHB 240
Parties
Applicant: Thabo Letakgomo; Respondent: Johnson Matthey (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2025
Case Number
J683/23
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Urgent Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
G N Moshoana
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure Act, Occupational Detriment, Disciplinary Hearing, Section 188a Inquiry, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Protected Disclosure Act Occupational Detriment Disciplinary Hearing Section 188a Inquiry Costs Award

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thabo Letakgomo

Applicant

Johnson Matthey (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Urgent Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant made a disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act.
  2. 2 Whether the disciplinary hearing constitutes an occupational detriment under the Act.
  3. 3 Whether section 188A(11) of the Labour Relations Act can be invoked to terminate the internal disciplinary hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant did not make a disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act, as his report concerned criminal conduct not attributable to the employer or its employees. Without a protected disclosure, the disciplinary hearing could not be considered an occupational detriment, and the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section 188A(11) of the Labour Relations Act were not met. The court further held that the holding of a disciplinary hearing is not, in itself, an occupational detriment, and that Rule 34(9) of the CCMA Rules, which compels the employer to pay the prescribed fee when objecting to a section 188A(11) request, is inconsistent with the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the costs.