Masiye v MEC for Education: Mpumalanga (J3340/2012) [2013] ZALCJHB 1 (7 January 2013)

Masiye v MEC for Education: Mpumalanga (J3340/2012) [2013] ZALCJHB 1 (7 January 2013)

The court found that the applicant has an adequate alternative remedy to claim unpaid salary under section 77(1) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, either in the civil court or the Labour Court. The urgent application for payment of salary was therefore not justified. The court declined to interrogate the lawfulness of the termination of employment on the papers before it, noting that such issues are more appropriately addressed in review proceedings. The application for a final interdict failed as the applicant did not satisfy the requirement of no alternative remedy. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 1
Parties
Applicant: Masiye Rose; Respondent: MEC for Education: Mpumalanga
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 January 2013
Case Number
J3340/2012
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Unpaid Salary, Termination by Operation of Law, Final Interdict, Alternative Remedy, Basic Conditions of Employment Act
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unpaid Salary Termination by Operation of Law Final Interdict Alternative Remedy 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Masiye Rose

Applicant

MEC for Education: Mpumalanga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an urgent order for payment of outstanding salary.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's employment was terminated by operation of law under section 17(5) of the Public Service Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has an adequate alternative remedy under section 77(1) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant has an adequate alternative remedy to claim unpaid salary under section 77(1) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, either in the civil court or the Labour Court. The urgent application for payment of salary was therefore not justified. The court declined to interrogate the lawfulness of the termination of employment on the papers before it, noting that such issues are more appropriately addressed in review proceedings. The application for a final interdict failed as the applicant did not satisfy the requirement of no alternative remedy. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

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