Maile v Department of Correctional Services (JS33/13) [2017] ZALCJHB 106 (24 March 2017)

Maile v Department of Correctional Services (JS33/13) [2017] ZALCJHB 106 (24 March 2017)

The court held that the applicant's employment relationship was suspended upon his incarceration, and he could not be classified as an employee during that period. The appeal process could not be completed due to intervening circumstances, and the respondent was not obliged to convene appeal proceedings at the correctional facility. The applicant's reliance on clause 7.16.2.1 was misplaced, as the definitions in the relevant statutes require the ability to render services and receive remuneration, which was not possible during imprisonment. The claim for remuneration was therefore without merit and dismissed.

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 106
Parties
Applicant: Katishi Job Maile; Respondent: Department of Correctional Services
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 2017
Case Number
JS33/13
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
The applicant's claim is dismissed.
Judges
E Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Employee Definition, Remuneration Entitlement, Disciplinary Appeal Procedure, Incarceration and Employment, Basic Conditions of Employment Act
Labour Law Employee Definition Remuneration Entitlement Disciplinary Appeal Procedure Incarceration and Employment Basic Conditions of Employment 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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katishi Job Maile

Applicant

Department of Correctional Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant remained an employee of the respondent by virtue of his appeal against dismissal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to remuneration during the period following his dismissal and incarceration.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's employment relationship was suspended upon his incarceration, and he could not be classified as an employee during that period. The appeal process could not be completed due to intervening circumstances, and the respondent was not obliged to convene appeal proceedings at the correctional facility. The applicant's reliance on clause 7.16.2.1 was misplaced, as the definitions in the relevant statutes require the ability to render services and receive remuneration, which was not possible during imprisonment. The claim for remuneration was therefore without merit and dismissed.

Court Disposition

The applicant's claim is dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant's claim brought in terms of section 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.