Mahwanqa v South African Human Rights Commission (11208/2014) [2019] ZAGPJHC 125 (21 February 2019)

Mahwanqa v South African Human Rights Commission (11208/2014) [2019] ZAGPJHC 125 (21 February 2019)

The court held that the applicant's claim, although framed as a review of administrative action, is fundamentally a labour dispute concerning alleged unfair discrimination in the recruitment process. The applicant relies on the Employment Equity Act and the Labour Relations Act, both of which provide specific remedies and procedures for such disputes. The Constitutional Court's decisions in Gcaba and Chirwa establish that employment-related disputes, even those implicating constitutional rights, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court when the LRA prescribes the mechanism for resolution. The High Court's jurisdiction is ousted in these circumstances, and the applicant...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 125
Parties
Applicant: Professor Jozana Ka Mahwanqa; Respondent: The South African Human Rights Commission
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 February 2019
Case Number
11208/2014
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
S E Weiner
Legal Topics
Employment Equity Act, Unfair Discrimination, Jurisdiction of High Court, Administrative Action, Labour Relations Act
Labour Law Civil Procedure Employment Equity Act Unfair Discrimination Jurisdiction of High Court Administrative Action Labour Relations Act

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Professor Jozana Ka Mahwanqa

Applicant

The South African Human Rights Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review the respondent's decision not to shortlist the applicant for employment.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's conduct constitutes administrative action subject to review under PAJA.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was unfairly discriminated against in the recruitment process in terms of the Employment Equity Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's claim, although framed as a review of administrative action, is fundamentally a labour dispute concerning alleged unfair discrimination in the recruitment process. The applicant relies on the Employment Equity Act and the Labour Relations Act, both of which provide specific remedies and procedures for such disputes. The Constitutional Court's decisions in Gcaba and Chirwa establish that employment-related disputes, even those implicating constitutional rights, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court when the LRA prescribes the mechanism for resolution. The High Court's jurisdiction is ousted in these circumstances, and the applicant...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.