Mahlalela v Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator (J283/2011) [2011] ZALCJHB 11; [2011] 6 BLLR 587 (LC); (2011) 32 ILJ 1932 (LC) (23 February 2011)

Mahlalela v Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator (J283/2011) [2011] ZALCJHB 11; [2011] 6 BLLR 587 (LC); (2011) 32 ILJ 1932 (LC) (23 February 2011)

The court found that the applicant could not rely on a contractual right to fairness, as the Supreme Court of Appeal in McKenzie had held that such a right does not exist absent express contractual provision. The respondent's version that Maharaj had delegated authority to suspend the applicant was accepted on the Plascon-Evans principle. The court held that invalid suspension does not necessarily invalidate subsequent disciplinary proceedings. The internal policies cited by the applicant were guidelines, not mandatory obligations, and the respondent contested the claim that less punitive measures were not adopted. The applicant had alternative remedies, such as raising objections before...

Citation
[2011] ZALCJHB 11
Parties
Applicant: Blessing Mahlalela; Respondent: Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 February 2011
Case Number
J283/2011
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application Before Disciplinary Enquiry
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Unlawful Suspension, Disciplinary Enquiry, Contractual Right to Fairness, Delegation of Authority, Internal Policies and Procedures
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unlawful Suspension Disciplinary Enquiry Contractual Right to Fairness Delegation of Authority Internal Policies and Procedures

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blessing Mahlalela

Applicant

Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application Before Disciplinary Enquiry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's suspension was unlawful due to lack of authority by the suspending official.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a contractual right to fairness enforceable in the Labour Court.
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary enquiry can proceed if the suspension was invalid.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant could not rely on a contractual right to fairness, as the Supreme Court of Appeal in McKenzie had held that such a right does not exist absent express contractual provision. The respondent's version that Maharaj had delegated authority to suspend the applicant was accepted on the Plascon-Evans principle. The court held that invalid suspension does not necessarily invalidate subsequent disciplinary proceedings. The internal policies cited by the applicant were guidelines, not mandatory obligations, and the respondent contested the claim that less punitive measures were not adopted. The applicant had alternative remedies, such as raising objections before...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Orders

  • The urgent application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs of preparation and representation on 22 February 2011.