Makhenkana v City of Cape Town (EC08/2018) [2018] ZAWCHC 187 (12 December 2018)

Makhenkana v City of Cape Town (EC08/2018) [2018] ZAWCHC 187 (12 December 2018)

The High Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's claim, as the dispute falls squarely within the exclusive domain of the Labour Court under the Labour Relations Act and Employment Equity Act. The applicant had already exhausted all remedies available under these statutes, including internal appeal, arbitration, and Labour Court review, all of which upheld the dismissal. The court further held that the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act does not apply to the applicant's claim, as expressly excluded by section 5(3) of PEPUDA. No prima facie evidence of discrimination was presented, and the respondent did not act unfairly or...

Citation
[2018] ZAWCHC 187
Parties
Applicant: Zandisile Makhenkana; Respondent: City of Cape Town
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2018
Case Number
EC08/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / High Court Review After Exhaustion of Internal and Labour Court Remedies
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Baartman
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Employment Equity Act, Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process
Labour Law Civil Procedure Sexual Harassment Employment Equity Act Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act Jurisdiction Abuse of Process

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zandisile Makhenkana

Applicant

City of Cape Town

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / High Court Review After Exhaustion of Internal and Labour Court Remedies

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's claim after remedies under the Labour Relations Act were exhausted.
  2. 2 Whether the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act applies to the applicant's claim.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent discriminated against the applicant in the dismissal process.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's claim, as the dispute falls squarely within the exclusive domain of the Labour Court under the Labour Relations Act and Employment Equity Act. The applicant had already exhausted all remedies available under these statutes, including internal appeal, arbitration, and Labour Court review, all of which upheld the dismissal. The court further held that the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act does not apply to the applicant's claim, as expressly excluded by section 5(3) of PEPUDA. No prima facie evidence of discrimination was presented, and the respondent did not act unfairly or...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant's claim is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.