Maroleng v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Limited (J 1520/2019) [2022] ZALCJHB 319 (18 November 2022)

Maroleng v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Limited (J 1520/2019) [2022] ZALCJHB 319 (18 November 2022)

Although the applicant's contract incorporated the disciplinary code and thus a contractual right to an appeal hearing, the remedy of specific performance is discretionary. The court found that the significant delay between dismissal and the application, the impossibility of convening an appeal before a higher authority (since the board was the highest decision-maker), and the applicant's conduct in referring the matter to the CCMA and subsequently withdrawing it, all weighed against granting specific performance. The applicant's subsequent litigation conduct, including late amendments and irrelevant material, further aggravated the position. The court concluded that, in all the...

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 319
Parties
Applicant: Bandlalenkosi Chris Maroleng; Respondent: South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Limited
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 November 2022
Case Number
J 1520/2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Contractual Rights in Employment, Specific Performance, Disciplinary Code Incorporation, Procedural Fairness, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contractual Rights in Employment Specific Performance Disciplinary Code Incorporation Procedural Fairness Costs Award

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bandlalenkosi Chris Maroleng

Applicant

South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's contract of employment incorporated a right to an appeal hearing against dismissal.
  2. 2 Whether specific performance is an appropriate remedy for enforcing the alleged contractual right to an appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the delay and circumstances preclude the granting of specific performance.

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicant's contract incorporated the disciplinary code and thus a contractual right to an appeal hearing, the remedy of specific performance is discretionary. The court found that the significant delay between dismissal and the application, the impossibility of convening an appeal before a higher authority (since the board was the highest decision-maker), and the applicant's conduct in referring the matter to the CCMA and subsequently withdrawing it, all weighed against granting specific performance. The applicant's subsequent litigation conduct, including late amendments and irrelevant material, further aggravated the position. The court concluded that, in all the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed, with costs.