Majoe v Nala Local Municipality and Another (5559/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 117 (31 March 2025)

Majoe v Nala Local Municipality and Another (5559/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 117 (31 March 2025)

The court found that the dispute raised by the applicant, namely the timing and service of the disciplinary notice, is a matter of interpretation and application of the collective agreement concluded under the SALGBC. Section 24 of the Labour Relations Act requires such disputes to be resolved through the procedures set out in the collective agreement, specifically conciliation and arbitration before the bargaining council. The High Court is not clothed with jurisdiction to review the disciplinary ruling in this context, as the applicant’s cause of action is based on a breach of an LRA obligation and must be pursued through the mechanisms provided by the LRA. The applicant’s failure to...

Citation
[2025] ZAFSHC 117
Parties
Applicant: Thulo Majoe; Respondent: Nala Local Municipality; Respondent: Mokete Mokhati
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2025
Case Number
5559/2023
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mhlambi, Naidoo
Legal Topics
Collective Agreement Interpretation, Jurisdiction of High Court, Disciplinary Procedure, Review Under Rule 53
Labour Law Civil Procedure Collective Agreement Interpretation Jurisdiction of High Court Disciplinary Procedure Review Under Rule 53

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thulo Majoe

Applicant

Nala Local Municipality

Respondent

Mokete Mokhati

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review and set aside the disciplinary ruling made by the second respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the dispute regarding the timing and service of the disciplinary notice falls within the interpretation and application of a collective agreement under section 24 of the LRA.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant complied with Uniform Rule 53 regarding the filing of a certified record for review purposes.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the dispute raised by the applicant, namely the timing and service of the disciplinary notice, is a matter of interpretation and application of the collective agreement concluded under the SALGBC. Section 24 of the Labour Relations Act requires such disputes to be resolved through the procedures set out in the collective agreement, specifically conciliation and arbitration before the bargaining council. The High Court is not clothed with jurisdiction to review the disciplinary ruling in this context, as the applicant’s cause of action is based on a breach of an LRA obligation and must be pursued through the mechanisms provided by the LRA. The applicant’s failure to...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs including counsel’s fees on scale B.